On 7/25/12 3:38 AM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
This originally came in the context of VRRP v3. If you want to run
some dynamic routing protocol at the same time as VRRP on the same
VLAN, you need another link-local address to talk to your routing
peers with, since there's no way for the non-master r
>
>
>
=> The router doesn't need to know the host's route table, it knows
which
address it included in its RAs, which is what the host records.
I'm not sure why you think that there is no way the router can
construct
that message reliably. If it uses the same addre
On 25/07/2012, at 9:19 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> am Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:11:53PM +1200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
>> However, if it is not a misconfiguration, and you wish to redirect traffic
>> that has a better first hop, or is on-link but the host for whatever reason
>> doe
Andrew,
am Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:11:53PM +1200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> However, if it is not a misconfiguration, and you wish to redirect traffic
> that has a better first hop, or is on-link but the host for whatever reason
> does not know that, is that possible? Should it be?
I still
On 24/07/2012, at 4:45 PM, Hesham Soliman wrote:
>>>
>>> => The router doesn't need to know the host's route table, it knows which
>>> address it included in its RAs, which is what the host records.
>>> I'm not sure why you think that there is no way the router can construct
>>> that message rel
>>
>>=> The router doesn't need to know the host's route table, it knows which
>> address it included in its RAs, which is what the host records.
>> I'm not sure why you think that there is no way the router can construct
>> that message reliably. If it uses the same address it uses for its RAs,
>>
On 24/07/2012, at 4:15 PM, Hesham Soliman wrote:
>
>> I've come across what looks like a bug in the ICMPv6 spec.
>
> => You mean in 4861 or ICMPv6?
That's what I'm trying to work out, and I could see two potential solutions.
>
>> Specifically, RFC 4861 says that "A host MUST silently discard
On 24/07/2012, at 4:09 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 15:46 +1200, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>> Unfortunately, there is no way that a router can reliably generate
>> that response, if it has more than one link-local address
>
> Do you mean "has more than one link-local address" or "ha
>I've come across what looks like a bug in the ICMPv6 spec.
=> You mean in 4861 or ICMPv6?
>Specifically, RFC 4861 says that "A host MUST silently discard any
>received Redirect message that does not satisfy all of the following
>validity checks" amongst which is "The IP source address of the Re
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 15:46 +1200, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> Unfortunately, there is no way that a router can reliably generate
> that response, if it has more than one link-local address
Do you mean "has more than one link-local address" or "has more than one
link-local address on the receiving in
I've come across what looks like a bug in the ICMPv6 spec. Specifically, RFC
4861 says that "A host MUST silently discard any received Redirect message that
does not satisfy all of the following validity checks" amongst which is "The IP
source address of the Redirect is the same as the current f
11 matches
Mail list logo
