Subject: RE: nonexisting destination on p2p link

From: "Richard Draves" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:02:57 -0700

> I'm inclined to disagree.
> when pinging a local interface address for a p2p link, some 
> IPv4 implementations send the ping out the link, and gets it 
> back from the remote router, as a way of verifying connectivity.
> 
> implementing your suggestion prevents the option of doing 
> something similar for IPv6. let the packets bounce between 
> the two routers for a while, in the end you'll get a time 
> exceeded message anyway.

Hmm. I'm not familiar with that IPv4 practice. itojun already mentioned
the DoS concern. When it's an innocent error, I also think that it will
be difficult to diagnose the time exceeded and realize the problem is a
typo in the destination address instead of a routing loop.

Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 14:58:31 +0900

>In the case of link-local addresses, I think that the packet should
>only be  forwarded once across the p2p link- when the hop limit goes
>below 255, it shouldn't get forwarded back?

	unfortunately there's no such rule (as far as i know).  if you find
	any mention in RFC/draft, please let me know.

itojun