In your previous mail you wrote: > There are some implementations which enforce the use of link-local > addresses but I agree that global addresses are not forbidden, or > the use of more than one link-local address... Note that this also happens if you'd like to use an anycast address as the nexthop: even in the link-local scope, e.g. fe80::. => even if in theory this should work in practice this doesn't work at all (at least it was a disaster when I tried many years ago :-).
(I'm not sure whether these are realistic scenarios or not..) => there are many nodes with multiple link-local addresses and in these nodes some are routers. IMHO we should not try to support redirect sent from a "random" link-local source address but we have to address the problem, i.e., just change on-link by link-local is not enough to really answer to your question... > BTW I don't believe > a host is required to redirect its packets. You mean, host is not required to respond to redirects sent by the routers? => host is not required to update its routing table (i.e., there is a SHOULD, not a MUST). Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: I have a limited interest question about redirects: some implementations drop received redirects on routers, in fact RFC 2461 only says it MUST NOT update its routing table, so a redirect received from an unknown router should give a new STALE neighbor cache entry... -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
