On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, marcelo bagnulo wrote: [..] > I agree that a MAY would do it, so that exit routers at multihomed sites can > be configured to support this and hosts within the multihomed site are > upgraded to understand the message
But what do you do when the routers will NOT supply this message? In general, I think only few routers would report this, as it would require an entirely new kind of logical "interface" between ingress filtering and ICMP in the implementation (when generating the ICMP message, look up the ingress filtering table in a new way, again) -- especially the products which do not generate these messages on software would unlikely be upgraded. Note that you have to add different code in the hosts for the major case when this supplemental information is NOT supplied as well. This would be just an optimization, and an unnecessary one for a dual-homed network (if it fails, just try the other address :), which is probably (unless you subscribe to ohta-san's DFZ model :) the common case. So this would seem to be an optimization for the case that: - routers in fact do supply the information, - just one prefix is used per router, - the site/host is multihomed to at least 3 providers. Is it really worth it? :-) -- 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 IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
