James Carlson wrote:
> I don't see how that's relevant for a user trying to support systems
> with LLAs. Moreover, I don't see how it matters -- the protocols will
> all work properly, even if the address is chosen in some "non random"
> fashion.
Not knowing exactly the reasons behind why the RFC explicitly
states that and assuming that the authors and the WG behind
the RFC made a conscious decision, I am not sure if we can
just say that it is not relevant.
> Quite obviously, that answer is somewhere between "incomplete" and
> "unusable."
>
> When our system with a global address gets a packet from this LLA
> system, how can it ever send a reply? The only way it can do so is if
> it has some sort of special understanding of how to reach LLAs.
>
> That "special understanding" can be in the form of a configured
> address and subnet that make this address reachable, or it can be in
> the form of hard-coded tweaks to the stack.
>
> Without that, though, the usual rules apply: when we try to send a
> packet, we look up the destination address in the forwarding table
> first. If we find a route, then that's where we're going to send it.
> If we don't find one, then it hits the floor.
Are you trying to say that since either way is a hack, so why
one way but not the other?
> It doesn't matter, because it doesn't work.
It works sometimes, just not "all the time" :-}
--
K. Poon.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
