Op 6 nov. 2013, om 18:06 heeft David Lamparter <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:19:27PM -0800, Teco Boot wrote: >> Op 6 nov. 2013, om 15:26 heeft Mark Townsley <[email protected]> het >> volgende geschreven: >>> o The routing protocol or mechanism includes a destination prefix, >>> which may be a default route (::/0) or any more specific prefix up >>> to and including a host route (/128). >> >> For homenets and having ingress filtering as BCP, I think ::/0 routes >> with ::/0 source prefixes shall not be used. Also, for homenets I do >> not see a use case for non-::0 destination prefixes with non-::/0 >> source prefixes. > > The NTT video service mentioned several times (forgot the name) is a > good example of non-::0 dst with non-::0 src. Why would ::/0 from SOURCE_PREFIX not work? It enables access to whatever prefix of the video service infrastructure. Same model applies to VPN tunnel to enterprise network. It is a waste of energy to flood enterprise prefixes to VPN client. Sinking traffic with source VPN prefix will do. Teco > Admittedly, you could > drop the source information without too much loss there, but I'm still > hopeful that we can somehow feed that information up into the host to > improve source address selection. > > That use case also presents a nice demo of the non-match behaviour > because there will be no (dst ::0 src <videoprefix>) route, yielding an > automatÑ–c unreachable should a host try to go on the internet with its > video address. > > > -David _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
