On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, 08:35 Bob Hinden, <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ron, > > > On Nov 30, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica= > 40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Pablo, > > > > > > > > Consider the packet (SA,DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) where: > > > > > > > > • SA is link-local (fe80) > > • DA, S3, S2, and S1 are all END.X > > > > > > Section 4.2 suggests that this packet will be delivered over multiple > hops to its destination, regardless of its link-local source address. > > I would think that RFC2460 Section 2.5.6. "Link-Local IPv6 Unicast > Addresses” covers this: > > Link-Local addresses are for use on a single link. Link-Local > addresses have the following format: > > | 10 | > | bits | 54 bits | 64 bits | > +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+ > |1111111010| 0 | interface ID | > +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+ > > Link-Local addresses are designed to be used for addressing on a > single link for purposes such as automatic address configuration, > neighbor discovery, or when no routers are present. > > Routers must not forward any packets with Link-Local source or > destination addresses to other links. >
I think that's RFC4291. RFC4007, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture" does too, more generally and probably more formally, in particular section 9, "Forwarding". Regards, Mark. > Bob > > > > > > > > > > Is this the case? > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > _______________________________________________ > > spring mailing list > > spring@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
