=> I think even the nodes that implement 3484 may make the wrong decision. The text that Alper sent is not "standards text"
and I suspect there are implementations (e.g. BSD) that don't
follow this.
Right.
> But I have a question about the NEMO case. I had assumed that mobile > routers move around and attach their egress interface to various > place in the internet. And that their ingress interface serves > a number of hosts, unaware of the movements. I don't see the > default router selection as an issue in this scenario, as the > hosts will stick to the same mobile router all the time, and > the mobile router acts like a host on its egress interface. So > if the visited link works for hosts, it should work for mobile > routers.
=> The problem is when you have 2 MRs, each advertising a different prefix (i.e. different home prefix).
They are advertising a different prefix on the _ingress_ interface, and the two MRs both use the _same_ ingress interface? Is it the same because it was configured to do so, as in somehow load- balancing/fault-tolerant MR configuration? Or because their ingress links happened to randomly merge, or the incapability of the link layer to keep the two MRs on different links?
--Jari
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
