> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 12 07:53:39 2002 > Received: from roll.mentat.com (roll [192.88.122.129]) > by leo.mentat.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA16591 > for <tim@leo>; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:53:39 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) > by roll.mentat.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA17372 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:53:37 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) > by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14156; > Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:52:23 -0600 (MDT) > Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.168.88]) > by engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id >HAA00073;
Markku Savela, > > However, I'm not quite sure how I should deal with other > incoming destionations: link local or global scope packets. Should I > > a) match them with site scope listen, if the originating interface > belongs to site scope = X? > > b) only accept strictly destination with site scope addresses, even if > they enter system from interface that has site scope = X? > For what it is worth, we will be implementing b). Tim Hartrick Mentat Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
