message to 'down' intf

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 27 March 1995 15:08 UTC

Message-Id: <v02110102ab9c795d08e7@[171.69.128.114]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 06:49:58 -0800
To: jhalpern@newbridge.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: message to 'down' intf
Cc: rreq@isi.edu

I just received this note from Benny Rodrig. He raises two questions, the
second of which requires some minor wordsmithing. I await your pleasure; we
are, presumably, in the last call period, and some comments like this can
still be picked up. When you want an updated draft?

>From: Benny Rodrig <Benny@DEVELOP.RNDMAIL.rad.co.il>
>To: "'Fred Baker'" <fred@cisco.com>
>Cc: "'rreq'" <rreq@isi.edu>
>Subject: message to 'down' intf
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 95 15:36:00 PST
>Encoding: 23 TEXT
>
>
>In draft-ietf-rreq-cidr-02.txt, Revision 2.05 from 3/17/95
>Section 5.2.3, Local Delivery Decision, reads:
>              + The packet is delivered locally and not considered for
>                 forwarding in the following cases:
>                  - The packet's destination address exactly matches
>                    one of the router's IP addresses,
>
>Shouldn't this be unless the interface corresponding to this IP address
>is 'down'?
>If the router is configured with an IP address of net X, but is currently
>disconnected from network X, should it identify and deliver locally
>(e.g. answer ping) messages destined to that IP address?
>
>I also have an editorial comment:
>Section 5.3.5.4 mentions two types of broadcast that are indistinguishable
>under CIDR. This section is unclear, as the names of these two types
>were both changed to network-prefix-directed-broadcasts, making them
>truly indistinguishable...
>
>Benny Rodrig
>brodrig@rnd-gate.rad.co.il

The text in question is:

    .H4 "5.3.5.4 Network-Prefix-Directed Broadcasts"
    The first version of this memo spelled out procedures for dealing with
    network-prefix-directed-broadcasts. In a CIDR routing domain, these are
    indistinguishable from network-prefix-directed-broadcasts. The two are
    therefore treated together in section [5.3.5.2 Directed Broadcasts].

in a former version, this read:

    .H4 "5.3.5.4  Subnet-directed Broadcasts"
    The first version of this memo spelled out procedures for dealing with
    subnet-directed-broadcasts. In a CIDR routing domain, these are
    indistinguishable from net-drected-broadcasts. The two are therefore
    treated together in section [5.3.5.2 Directed Broadcasts].

And the text should be restored. Something about global replace, and how
zealous one should be when using it. oops.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
computers run on smoke, it if leaks out they won't run