message to 'down' intf
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 27 March 1995 15:08 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03754; 27 Mar 95 10:08 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03750; 27 Mar 95 10:08 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06558; 27 Mar 95 10:08 EST
Received: from stilton.cisco.com by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-21) id <AA07006>; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 06:50:08 -0800
Received: from [171.69.128.114] (fred-mac-fr.cisco.com [171.69.128.114]) by stilton.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA16878; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 06:49:55 -0800
X-Sender: fred@stilton.cisco.com
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
- message to 'down' intf Benny Rodrig
- Re: message to 'down' intf Fred Baker
- message to 'down' intf Fred Baker