netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH|RFC] IPv6: have a proxy discard link-local traffic

To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH|RFC] IPv6: have a proxy discard link-local traffic
From: Ville Nuorvala <vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:13:48 +0200 (EET)
Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, usagi-core@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401280725370.14588-100000@netcore.fi>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401280725370.14588-100000@netcore.fi>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] µÈÆ£±ÑÌÀ wrote:
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401272259160.28384@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Tue, 27 
> > Jan 2004 23:11:20 +0200 (EET)), Ville Nuorvala <vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> > > + /* The proxying router can't forward traffic sent to a link-local
> > > +    address, so signal the sender and discard the packet. This
> > > +    behavior is required by the MIPv6 specification. */
> >
> > Would you please clarify the word "can't" and its reasons?
> > won't? don't? or whatever?
>
> I think "can't" in this context means, "it can't be _forwarded_
> because it's link-local".  It could be proxied using some other
> function than ip6_forward, though.

Yes.

--
Ville Nuorvala
Research Assistant, Institute of Digital Communications,
Helsinki University of Technology
email: vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx, phone: +358 (0)9 451 5257


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>