>>>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:06:44 +0200 (EET),
>>>>> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On the other hand, not implementing (c) could lead to situations where using
>> (d) could result in the ICMPv6 message having a link local address as source
>> if the interface itself only has a link local address. This is OK for
>> neighbor discovery where everything is link local but less so for an ICMPv6
>> message that came from outside the local link.
> In that case, I guess (d) would have to be reworded to better match
> reality, for example, from:
> (d) Otherwise, the node's routing table must be examined to
> determine which interface will be used to transmit the message
> to its destination, and a unicast address belonging to that
> interface MUST be used as the Source Address of the message.
> to:
> (d) Otherwise, the source address is determined by the same
> way as for any other packet the node originates.
I tend to agree with removing 2.2(c) and with the revised text. And,
FWIW, in some recent versions of the KAME implementation we apply the
default address selection rule defined in RFC3484 in case of 2.2 (d),
partly because the resulting source address(es) would be more
deterministic.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
