On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Discussing one implementation, a possible source of ambiguity in RFC2461 > >came up. > > > >RFC2461 discusses that next-hops must be on-link. > > > >However, section 8 on redirect basically requires: > > - routers know each others' link-local addresses (not an issue from > >hosts' perspective, just use routing protocols or other mechanisms) > > - hosts are able to verify that the redirect comes from the link-local > >address the host is currently using as its next-hop > > > >The latter is a bit problematic. How could the host know this in the case > >where the next-hop has been configured using e.g. a _global_ (but on-link) > >address? > > to say it backwards, for the ICMPv6 redirect to work correctly, nexthop > address on the routing table MUST be link-local (even when manually > configured). i think adding this text clarifies the concern.
Yes, this would fix and clarify the issue, but I think it might substantially change the overall assumption of the document, i.e. "next-hop must be onlink". It might be interesting to hear if this was an issue that was debated when RFC2461 (or previous versions) were specified. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
