Re: source route reversal Thu, 02 February 1995 12:45 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01589; 2 Feb 95 7:45 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01585; 2 Feb 95 7:45 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03988; 2 Feb 95 7:45 EST
Received: from by (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA14436>; Thu, 2 Feb 1995 04:27:52 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Posted-Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 04:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <>
Received: by (5.65c/4.0.3-4) id <AA02779>; Thu, 2 Feb 1995 04:27:16 -0800
Subject: Re: source route reversal
To: Scott Bradner <>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 04:27:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <> from "Scott Bradner" at Jan 27, 95 08:31:04 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 769

> A question on the current rr draft  (I don't know the answer)
> A number of places the current draft says that if there is a source 
> route in the packet and any response (ICMP etc) has to be generated, 
> the source route MUST be reversed and used to direct the return packet.  
> The issue of doing this sort of thing came up in the IPv6 source route 
> discussions and some people like Tony Li had strong thoughts that this type of
> behavior should not be required.  
> Is this something that should be brought up for specific discussion?
> Scott

Well maybe.  I expect that the draft wording correctly reflects the 
general agreement of the group and the intent of source routes.      
Tony, What does SDR have to say on this matter?