On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I suspect it's some of each. The host should, I should think, set the hop
>>> limit to one on any packet that is to a link-local address, to ensure that
>>> the packet is not repeated by a broken router (apart from protocols that
>>> ask to have it set to 255 and have the receiving host check for that
>>> value). Also, upstream network's BCP 38 implementation sounds suspect, and
>>> I'm with Jen in wondering why a router forwarded the packet in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> Are you sure these packets come from hosts? There is a known case
>> which is a router generating ICMP reply packets that has no GUA
>> configured since all its peers are link-local.
>
> I saw packets with link-local source/GUA destination coming from hosts
> and from routers (I analyzed EUI-64-based IIDs) back in 2011. Now
> majority of such traffic is TCP to our services and, again, IID checks
> shows that these packets are from hosts.
>
It is not wrong for a node {host, router} to emit a packet with a link-local
source and a destination in another scope.
It is wrong for a router to forward a packet containing a link-local scope
address (source or destination). It is wrong to do so regardless of whether the
outgoing link is the same as the incoming link or not.
Owen
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
