Subject: Re: Should loose source routing be enabled if not IPFORWARDING?
To: Charles M. Hannum <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: John Hawkinson <email@example.com>
Date: 12/14/1994 02:14:29
> From: "Charles M. Hannum" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> This is correct behavior, as documented by RFC1122, which states on
> page 35, under section ``18.104.22.168 Options: RFC-791 Section 3.2'',
> subsection (c) Source Route Options:
> A host MUST support originating a source route and MUST be
> able to act as the final destination of a source route.
> This imples by omission that it's legal for a host to not act as an
> intermediary for source routing.
Sigh. Open Mouth, Insert Foot. This is the price I pay for trying
to give the same answer to two slightly different questions.
Indeed, the appropriate section is ``3.3.5 Source Route Forwarding''
Subject to restrictions given below, a host MAY be able to act
as an intermediate hop in a source route, forwarding a source-
routed datagram to the next specified hop.
Where MAY is formally defined as:
This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item
is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the
item because a particular marketplace requires it or
because it enhances the product, for example; another
vendor may omit the same item.
Nevertheless, my previous comments still apply -- it is legal for a
host to ignore non-local source routing, but NetBSD's current behavior
of permitting it is legal as well (though optional per 1122), and,