Subject: RE: scoped addresses and routing headers

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:29:39 +0900

>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:32:49 -0700, 
>>>>> Richard Draves <[email-masked]> said:

>> If the router R adopts the weak host(node) model, it will accept
>> packets destined to G2 regardless of the incoming interface (I1 or
>> I2). The incoming interface depends on the routing in the intermediate
>> cloud and can dynamically be changed.

> I think the the spec's "receiving interface" should always be the interface
> to which G2 is assigned, even if this is a weak host model implementation
> and the packet is actually received on some other interface.

> I think this interpretation produces the "only reasonable approach" that you
> describe.

Right, there would be no ambiguity with this interpretation. I think
the draft should clearly state this.
(As I said in the previous mail, I personally prefer a stricter rule,
though.)

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------