Hi Joseph, I presume that you are not using IP-in-IP tunneling. If you were using IP-in-IP tunneling as the draft suggests, then the source address of the inserting router is included in the outer IP header.
Your comment seems relevant to draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers-00, which describes what needs to be done to directly insert the extension header in the packet (and the risks involved with doing so). Note that this draft has expired. Is there interest to revive it? -- Jonathan Hui On Apr 21, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Reddy, Joseph wrote: > ( resending as original post didn’t go through… ) > > Hi, > > I have a comment on the rpl-routing-header draft that was noticed during > interoperability testing conducted by the zigbee alliance. > > In the most common usage of this header, the border router inserts a source > routing header with the full set of intermediate nodes before forwarding it > towards the destination within the RPL network. > > In case of a forwarding error along the route, the intermediate node sends > the icmp error message to the source node, however in this case it actually > needs to send to the node that inserted the routing header. > > To fix this issue, the suggestion is that the node that inserts the soruce > routing header should include its own address as the first address in the > list. This will allow intermediate nodes to send error to it for forwarding > failures. > > > -Regards, Joseph > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
