Re: Forwarding Packets With Link Local Destination Addresses

Toerless Eckert <> Thu, 07 January 2021 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9538F3A0A69 for <>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:02:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.87
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KQ5M0IYRnV_T for <>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C55733A0AB4 for <>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304EF548056; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:02:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 276D4440163; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:02:17 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:02:17 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: Fred Baker <>
Cc: Ron Bonica <>,
Subject: Re: Forwarding Packets With Link Local Destination Addresses
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 19:02:25 -0000

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:45:43AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 9:54 AM, Ron Bonica <> wrote:
> > According to RFC 4291, ???routers must not forward any packets with Link-Local source or destination addresses to other links???.
> This, of course, imposes a requirement that no routers I???m aware of carry out absent explicit configuration, which is to make a forwarding decision (in this case a filter) based on the source address.

The words are english. The sentence structure looks more german, but i still can't parse it.

I also thought we had (source/mask,dest/mask) forwarding for IPv6 multi-homing somehwere in Homenet at some point in time. Without explicit config, just to enable to use source address to steer packets towards the desired ISP exit point.

> Reverse forwarding lookups *might* accomplish this by associating link local addresses with the interface the packet it was received on, but that would only happen if reverse address lookups (normally associated with BCP 38) were enabled. 
> So one could argue that RFC 4291 goes beyond its remit in this regard.

"beyond its remit" for mentioning source address ?