Subject: (IPng 6567) RE: Source route question

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 23:07:01 -0700

>   Why is the swap located there instead of after the hop 
> limit decrement? It
> seems to be a wasted step, but does affect the contents of 
> the ICMP error.

My conceptual picture is that everything up to the hop limit check is part
of the routing header processing proper, while the hop limit check (and
other checks which are not mentioned in that description) are part of a more
general forwarding function. So reversing the two steps as you describe
should be acceptable, I think, but it might not be desirable in an
implementation that wants to share the routing header forwarding code with
normal router forwarding code.

Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Craig Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 13:06:26 -0300

>normal router forwarding code.

  Ok, I can see why you would want to do it this way. However, the wording in
the current spec basically forces you to implement things this way, whether or
not it's the most efficient way for you to implement.

									-Craig