> The real question how one processes a datagram with a routing header when > the forwarding of routing headers has been disabled. This issue is not > mentioned in the specification (one could argue it should not be).
Agreed. > The options basically are: > > 1) ignore the routing header, that is, act like segments left would have > been = 0 > 2) drop the packet silently > 3) drop the packet and send back an ICMP message > - with some already defined type/code > - with some new type/code Some food for thought: Taking Steve Deering's suggestion into account there seems to be 3 knobs that a node should have: 1. forwarding (or not) packets no explicitly addressed to itself (i.e. is the node a router or not) 2. forwarding (or not) packets with RH where the next hop is outside the node 3. forwarding (or not) packets with a RM where the next hop is the same node For MIPv6 we need knob 3 to be on by default on the MN. For #1: when a host receives a packet not explicitly addressed to itself it must silently drop it. For #2 I don't see anything in RFC 2460 or the icmpv6 draft about sending ICMP error vs. silently dropping. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
