Doubt in RFC 3484
jiten shah <jitenshah18@gmail.com> Mon, 04 June 2012 08:27 UTC
Return-Path: <jitenshah18@gmail.com>
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 5DB9321F87B0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1MA5gY+LsN82 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808C721F87AF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbeh20 with SMTP id eh20so8128817obb.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=HrJtE91BW2axW1DpJiqcaolJXbjGuGYcbYOZ5opt1NI=; b=zXrPnb5rCrOThBcti+y4BZoBo1vhCuV6+q2Iwumxcu77gPCcgjNbgWCq19+bAU3qk2 fIAVmRnJDZUfWO0XcK99mRvBSLL2oliH/+4v0rXjfXpKelmh8hwzaSwSIZYKAjNtkJZu HH7LEngDmM18ULSx+IOahIv7lzTSopunBGDiOQu0MveNvdmnEwwtqNdArHMX8vSfXQuA BWn+crznbowuDMoNQRwGLX9e2GK9v6Vz2ZTwFRng3JSZxV5h6+CEhDiJigabnhil1YHT sSDf3KFJLPGqUCveSNMW1LA5PmMR0cV/dp3dRscEVxIBSRjYe0kJf1s7HH+oKanC8lhf tb/A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.14.169 with SMTP id q9mr11209571oec.19.1338798477140; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.143.103 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:57:57 +0530
Message-ID: <CACX_QMADGZRGuwrQgqCozDwCCVFr6ZktcYvhu6Gun1XocZxtDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Doubt in RFC 3484
From: jiten shah <jitenshah18@gmail.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb1ee0ea7e27704c1a14f00"
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:29:42 -0000
Consider a topology where two routers are connected back to back. these link have only a IPv6 link local address. I want to ping a global address on the other switch through this link. RFC 3484 says that for selecting the source address : It is RECOMMENDED that the candidate source addresses be the set of unicast addresses assigned to the interface that will be used to send to the destination. (The "outgoing" interface.) On routers, the candidate set MAY include unicast addresses assigned to any interface that forwards packets, subject to the restrictions described below. Discussion: *The Neighbor Discovery Redirect mechanism [14] requires that routers verify that the source address of a packet identifies a neighbor before generating a Redirect, so it is advantageous for hosts to choose source addresses assigned to the outgoing interface. Implementations that wish to support the use of global source addresses assigned to a loopback interface should behave as if the loopback interface originates and forwards the packet.* So since in my topology the outgoing link does not have a global v6 address I need to use address on other interface but I do not understand the above condition. Can someone simplify it on what basis we can use the addresses on the other interface ? Can some one please explain me
- Doubt in RFC 3484 jiten shah
- Re: Doubt in RFC 3484 Randy Bush
- RE: Doubt in RFC 3484 Dave Thaler