Re: WG action: 1 week to discuss LL18: Host with LL address MUSTARP for all addresses
Robert Elz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.zeroconf |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:35:23 +0100
From: "Philip Nye" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <000b01c3724a$2350a560$131010ac@aldebaran>
| I support Bernard's proposal with Mika's change of MUST to SHOULD. I don't
| see that this change allows damaging behaviour because the next sentence
| clearly precludes sending to a router.
Yes, though that of course is meaningless in this context - if something
answers an ARP, you can't tell whether it is a router or not. The only
possible applicability of that prohibition would be from sending to
something that you have configured as a router, or have learned as a
router using some kind of router discovery mechanism.
If a router chooses to proxy-arp reply for an off link address, there's
nothing that a local node can do but send the packet to the address
received, nor is there any reason to expect or even desire it to do
otherwise.
kre