At Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:02:07 -0300, Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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? (Aside from what is actually documented in the RFC/draft) the additional check about on-link-ness or subnet matching was intentionally added and that's what we implemented for KAME/*BSDs. See, e.g., http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet6/ip6_forward.c?rev=1.68&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup (around the comment beginning with "If the incoming interface is equal...") As commented, we wanted to separate an inevitable loop with a valid configuration from loops due to configuration/operational/implementation errors (most typically a temporary routing loop). We'd rather catch the latter type of error easily with usual diagnostic tools such as traceroute so that we can find and fix it quickly. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
