IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Dumb question about routing headers

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sun, 24 May 2020 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A2A3A0D7E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tm8ZWPxihAxz for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 414B43A0C7F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04OLMWmr047737 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 24 May 2020 22:22:32 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Dumb question about routing headers
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <4cf28892-12a9-7376-c378-4af46f7002c2@gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <a92543b3-41e2-0f4c-1cf3-34b68b3275ce@foobar.org>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 22:22:31 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4cf28892-12a9-7376-c378-4af46f7002c2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5SIK9xhB0dBgCO9eWIKGf3Y3w6k>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 21:22:46 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote on 24/05/2020 22:05:
> Is a routing header whose final destination is a multicast address,
> but whose previous segments are all unicast, valid?

... or whose intermediate destinations are multicast addresses?

https://twitter.com/brenankeller/status/1068615953989087232

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email