draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00.txt vs RFC4443

[Pekka Savola <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I changed the subject, because the original intent was lost in the 
weeds.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Olivier Vautrin wrote:
> It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with 
> RFC4443. But this has no impact on shipping ASIC based routers. It 
> is difficult to say though if some smaller routers could be 
> impacted.

This, and what Ole Troan wrote on interface lookup, is interesting.

RFC4443 requires checking that destination address matches the subnet 
prefix.  Is this the hot issue?

Note that pingpong-00 document did not have this requirement; the 
specification was different (incoming/outgoing interface).  Does this 
have different implications on the feasibility of implementation?

FWIW, "Packet may be forwarded back on the received interface" is 
actually, AFAIK, used in certain PE routerscenarios where you ping 
yourself over a p2p link.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings