Manfredi, Albert E writes: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I don't agree that those OSes "screw up royally." They are, in fact, > > doing what their users *tell* them to do. > > > > If an application binds the source address on Subnet B and then sends > > a packet with a destination address that's either best reached or > > *only* reachable over Subnet A, then what's the system to do? > > I think that Fred's draft tries to prevent applications from making such > mistakes. Seems to me that whether the host is dual-homed on two > separate interfaces, or multi-homed on various IP subnets on the same > physical wire as Fred's draft discusses, is not all that different.
In my answer, and based on the context, I was addressing the "screw up royally" comment. I agree that -- as the draft says -- when you've got a choice among multiple equivalent routes, choosing the one associated with a router that gave the original prefix used for the chosen source address is goodness. If anything, I'm pointing out that this isn't always possible, and that users often get what they asked for rather than what they wanted. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
