[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: global/link-local nexthops and RFC2461
From:       Derek Fawcus <dfawcus () cisco ! com>
Date:       2003-07-18 15:15:20
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:27:32PM +0200, Francis Dupont wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    I think the question whether:
>    
>     - we want to specify next-hops must be link-locals
>    
> => I disagree (the must is far too strong)
> 
>     - we want to clearly state that redirects work only when using 
>    link-locals, and when the link-locals are the same as used in next-hops
>    
> => I agree
> 
>     - we want to figure out whether it's worth exploring the details needed 
>    to make redirects work with global/anycast next-hops.
>    
> => I disagree (we have far more useful things to do).
> In conclusion my opinion is N/Y/N.

I basically agree with Francis' points above,  with one provisio.  I may
occasionally be possible for a router (with a static route via a non LL
next-hop) to discover the corresponding LL and hence validate redirects.

Hence I'd say the answer to the second point is that you're only
guarenteed to be able to get working redirects if a LL next hop is
used.  With a non LL next-hop it's imp. (and specific config)
dependent if you'll get working redirects.

DF
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]