IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: ICMPv6 question

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Thu, 31 August 2017 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 43CF8132FC5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 eVc1QOSW7-ib for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E7F8132FB9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v7VNZm5M006012; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:35:48 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.222]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v7VNZjCE006001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:35:45 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:35:45 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:35:45 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: ICMPv6 question
Thread-Topic: ICMPv6 question
Thread-Index: AdMirYG7EwN54XmxT+uCHTYv5GBqHgAAw0HQ
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 23:35:44 +0000
Message-ID: <956f0877cf0f4d2a9e67cbf5b8bdeec6@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <952aab1a2c824a79b98a3f9d2b3a473a@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <952aab1a2c824a79b98a3f9d2b3a473a@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/m6ko3Tabe6hlUQfqxTpoW03-qc4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 23:35:51 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L

> I have a question. If an IPV6 host with address 2001:db8::f00
> assigned to an interface receives a packet with destination address
> 2001:db8::baa over that interface, what should it do? Drop the
> packet silently, or drop and return an ICMPv6 Destination
> Unreachable?

You said host and not router. Assuming that the prefix length is the same for the intended destination of the packet and for the host that received the packet, so the packet is not misrouted, then this sounds like what you'd frequently expect to see in older Ethernets, either coax Ethernets or half duplex ones that use hubs. But why didn't the Ethernet interface discard the packet? The MAC address should not have matched. Was it a ND failure scenario of some kind?

(In general, I don't see why a host should send host unreachable ICMP messages.)

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email