> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [Please express your opinion. It is needed to make > the informed decision.] > > Pekka raised a concern about the usability of one of the > methods (section 2.2 (c)) to select the source address > of the ICMPv3 packet. I want to know if anyone has > implemented it ? or how useful and practical this > method is in your opinion ? > > The decision that I want to make is to whether we should > keep it in the draft or remove it. > > Here is the text for quick reference. > ==================================================== > (c) If the message is a response to a message sent to > an address that does not belong to the node, the > Source Address should be that unicast address > belonging to the node that will be most helpful > in diagnosing the error. For example, if the message > is a response to a packet forwarding action that > cannot complete successfully, the Source Address > should be a unicast address belonging to the > interface on which the packet forwarding failed. > ==================================================== > > and here is the link to the current draft for quick > reference. > http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-03.txt
Currently I have following simple logic a) src address is the destination address of the packet to which ICMP is related. b) if the address of step (a) is not a valid address on the interface to which the ICMP is destined, the new valid source address is selected. I don't think it is good for *any* RFC to require a stack to send packets with wrong source address. Thus, if the ICMP draft seems to require such illegal thing, I think the draft needs revision. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
