Hi, Pekka, >> It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with >> RFC4443. But this has no impact on shipping ASIC based routers. It >> is difficult to say though if some smaller routers could be >> impacted. > > This, and what Ole Troan wrote on interface lookup, is interesting. > > RFC4443 requires checking that destination address matches the subnet > prefix. Is this the hot issue? > > Note that pingpong-00 document did not have this requirement;
AFAICT, it does. It says: "....and the destination address on the packet seems to be on-link (in terms of Neighbor Discovery) on the point-to-point interface". Or am I missing something? > the > specification was different (incoming/outgoing interface). Does this > have different implications on the feasibility of implementation? It seems that the point is not really that of reduced performance, but rather that complying with this requirement would require a change in the silicon? If that's the case (i.e., no real performance implications), then it looks like an appropriate fix for this issue. -- which does not necessarily argue against /127 prefixes, as there are other reasons for using them (or, put another way, let's not correlate *this* with the fight over /127 prefixes). > FWIW, "Packet may be forwarded back on the received interface" is > actually, AFAIK, used in certain PE routerscenarios where you ping > yourself over a p2p link. Is the echo request/response really forwarded back on the received interface? (isn't the *response* that is forwarded back on the received interface?) Thanks! Kind regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
