On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 12:16, Soliman, Hesham wrote: > => How do you know if you have no route to the destination?
You consult your forwarding table. > Could it not be on one of the links? It could be if you have a forwarding table entry that points to one or more of your local interfaces. > The difference is that > this case does not _assume_ that the destination is on-link, which > was there before. I does assume that that the destination is on-link. In outbound packet processing, you don't attempt to do link-layer address resolution until you've done the forwarding table lookup and done on-link determination. > > In any case, this issue was discussed with Jinmei last week and > here is the suggested text that we agreed on. Please let me know > if you have a comment: > > >> 1) If no Router Advertisement is received on any interfaces, a > >> multihomed host will have no way of knowing which > >> interface to > >> send packets out on, even for on-link destinations. One > >> possible approach for a multihomed node would be to > >> attempt to > >> perform address resolution on all interfaces. The same > >> argument applies to a singlehomed node that does not receive > >> any Router Advertisement, but the step in the multihomed case > >> involves significant complexity. The same argument does not apply to single homed nodes. The point of removing the on-link assumption was to make sure the node does _not_ do address resolution in the absence of a route to the destination. Are you saying that it's ok to do that if you have more than one network interface? That's how I read this text. -Seb -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
