Hi Pekka,
>> It seems that the point is not really that of reduced performance,
but
>> rather that complying with this requirement would require a change in
>> the silicon?
>>
>> If that's the case (i.e., no real performance implications), then it
>> looks like an appropriate fix for this issue. -
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:20:56 +0300 (EEST)
Pekka Savola wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I changed the subject, because the original intent was lost in the
> weeds.
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Olivier Vautrin wrote:
> > It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with
> > RFC4443. But this has n
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Fernando Gont wrote:
AFAICT, it does. It says: "and the destination address on the packet
seems to be on-link (in terms of Neighbor Discovery) on the
point-to-point interface". Or am I missing something?
Yes, you're right. I was not reading the text carefully enough.
>
> > FWIW, "Packet may be forwarded back on the received interface" is
> > actually, AFAIK, used in certain PE routerscenarios where you ping
> > yourself over a p2p link.
>
> Is the echo request/response really forwarded back on the received
> interface? (isn't the *response* that is forwarded
At Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:02:07 -0300,
Fernando Gont wrote:
> >> It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with
> >> RFC4443. But this has no impact on shipping ASIC based routers. It
> >> is difficult to say though if some smaller routers could be
> >> impacted.
> >
> > This, a
Hi, Pekka,
>> It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with
>> RFC4443. But this has no impact on shipping ASIC based routers. It
>> is difficult to say though if some smaller routers could be
>> impacted.
>
> This, and what Ole Troan wrote on interface lookup, is interesting
