Subject: RE: Quick Poll - RE: draft-ietf-dhc-csr-02.txt - Allow router to be 0.0.0.0?

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:48:05 -0400

>You mean the host would ARP for the destination even though this host
>does not have an IP address on that subnet?

Correct.

>If the host has an IP address on each subnet it is on (even if through
>the same interface) wouldn't it use its local routing function (not
>forwarding) to do the right thing on directly-attached subnets?

That's a different case. And, it probably not as typical as the other case
(where there are multiple physical subnets on a single wire and each host
generally only has one address on that wire).

- Bernie Volz
  IPWorks, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 5:37 PM
To: [email-masked]; DHCPv4 discussion list
Subject: Re: Quick Poll - RE: draft-ietf-dhc-csr-02.txt - Allow router
to be 0.0.0.0?

At 05:02 PM 06/22/2000 -0400, Bernie Volz wrote:
>... If the router IP address is 0.0.0.0, the client (if it supports it)
>should install a route such that the destination is directly reachable 
>on the interface being configured.

You mean the host would ARP for the destination even though this host
does not have an IP address on that subnet?

If the host has an IP address on each subnet it is on (even if through
the same interface) wouldn't it use its local routing function (not
forwarding) to do the right thing on directly-attached subnets?

John