Subject: Re: Peculiar ICMP6 redirect rejection
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 08/19/2002 18:46:44
>> but why does ND want to install such a route to begin with? R has
>> no business doing ND for L at all, since L isn't on the /112 R's on.
> You're thinking in IPv4 paradigms. IPv6 [...] has the ability to
> directly inform a node that some other node with what looks to be an
> off-link address, is actually on-link and can be reached directly.
Aha! Thank you. This looks like a bug in the code for that, then, in
that it isn't replacing the existing host route with the LL route.
>> (those not interested in watching kre and me chatter at one another
>> can stop reading now :-)
> That is probably everyone, and after this message, I think me
Well, you may not see this, then, but in case you do, thank you for
taking the time to explain things to me. Eventually I'll get all this
>> Because until the DNS infrastructure supports it well, renumbering
>> isn't going to become something that's undertaken casually.
> Sure, but what is required to make renumbering work wasn't part of
> the original discussion.
No. I was offering that as a reason I wasn't concerned about
renumbering breaking my route-to-global-address setup.
> (that is, no "renumbering without DNS support is hard, so because of
> that I won't care if I also make it hard by using globals for
More like "it's so hard - witness DNS lack of support - that in
practice it's going to happen seldom enough that it's not worth
>> As for nonstandard netmasks, I'm not sure what's "nonstandard" about
>> any of the netmasks I'm using,
> The conventional IPv6 wisdom in some quarters is that all links are
> required to use a /64 (nothing bigger, nothing smaller).
Eh. Well, see my response to William Waites if you want my opinion of
that. (Most briefly, I agree with the side you seem to.)
> I doubt the netmask is related to any of the questions here.
Me too. I may try switching everything to /64s (it's cramped, but
it'll fit), and if, as I fully expect, it still misbehaves, maybe
itojun will then admit there's something wrong.
> Using multiple prefixes on a link, without advertising them as being
> on link may be stressing the implementation, but it certainly isn't
Advertising them? Who should (for whatever value of "should") be
advertising them, to whom, and how? I think there's another piece of
v6 I don't know lurking here....
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML firstname.lastname@example.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B