Subject: RE: Some comments regarding draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-05.txt

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:54:07 +0200 (CEST)

[Catching up on some old mail ...]

> Perhaps it would be best to just remove the "no route" clause from Rule
> 1, and say that a destination D is considered unusable if Source(D) is
> undefined or if the next-hop neighbor for D is known to be unreachable.

The problem with "known to be unreachable" is that it is a very
transient condition as RFC 2461 is done.
At least the way I read 2461 when NUD declares that a neighbor is
unreachable it goes ahead and redoes next hop determination etc
but it doesn't retain any state about the node being unreachable - instead
it effectively forgets this knowledge.

Thus declaring to be unreachable is an event and not a state.
So I don't see what you can check - the fact that the event ocurred in
the last millisecond?

  Erik

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------