Subject: nexthop

From: "Pratap Reddy P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 13:14:59 -0500

Hi,

According to rfc (1723), nexthop should be on the same logical subnet on
which packet came. 

If somebody sends a route with with nexthop which is not *directly
reachable*, can we drop that route??
rfc also says treat that nexthop as 0.0.0.0, but doesn't it look
reasonable to invalidate that route??

If nexthop is not on the same logical subnet, but it's directly
reachable to me, should I accept that route or not?? (I don't know
whether this is directly reachable for the sender also or not. I assume
it is for him too). 
If I accept this, should I take nexthop as 0.0.0.0 (same as sender)??

Thanks in advance,

regards
Pratap

-- 
Pratap Reddy P.                  Phone:  (732) 283-2770 Ext. 324
Ficon Technology                 Fax:    (732) 283-2848
1000 Route 9 North               mailto:[email-masked]
Woodbridge, NJ 07095             http://www.ficon-tech.com

---

From: Gary Scott Malkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:51:39 -0500

> reasonable to invalidate that route??

You should not drop the route.  You should enter it into your table as
though the nexthop were left unspecified; that is, use the originator
of the route as the next hop (standard RIP).

> If I accept this, should I take nexthop as 0.0.0.0 (same as sender)??

The applicability document mentions an additional use for the nexthop
field.  If the next hop is for another interface, you could chose to
use it.  This ability should be controled by a configuration option.

-- 

Gary Malkin                                          Cheap, Fast, Good
(978) 916-4237                                       Pick two!