Subject: RE: question on next-hop determination

From: Jung Cyndi-ACJ099 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:21:50 -0500

Probably because there is no way to get off the link.

Cyndi

-----Original Message-----
From: Qing Li [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:12 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: question on next-hop determination

	In RFC2461, section 5.2, paragraph 2, the last
	sentence is "If the Default Router List is empty,
	the sender assumes that the destination is on-link."

	Why should the destination be considered on-link ??

	-- Qing

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Qing Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:38:25 -0700

> Probably because there is no way to get off the link.

	I am not sure I understand what you mean.

	Host A and Host B have different global routing prefixes,
	and for whatever reason Host A has an empty default
	router list. Why should Host A consider Host B on-link ?
	It would be wrong for Host A to send neighbor solication
	for Host B, no ?

	-- Qing