Subject: WG action: 1 week to discuss LL18: Host with LL address MUST ARP for all addresses

From: erik guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 12:35:14 -0700

Please send feedback to the mailing list on the suggested change to Section
2.6 as described in the reopened issue LL18.  Discussion is encouraged
until Sep 10, when a consensus call will be made regarding the issue.

Thanks and best regards,

Erik Guttman
ZEROCONF WG chair

---

From: Mika Liljeberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:14:14 +0300

> until Sep 10, when a consensus call will be made regarding the issue.

[Repeat comment]

In...

   "If the host has no appropriate
   routable source address, then it MUST ARP for the destination address
   and then send its packet, with a link-local source IP address and a
   routable destination IP address, directly to the destination on the
   same physical link."

s/MUST/SHOULD/

I don't think we can mandate a node not to drop the packet. In addition,
ARPing for everything does not work with multihoming. There needs to be
an escape hatch to allow multihomed stacks to implement something
appropriate. MUST is too strong.

	MikaL

---

From: "Philip Nye" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:35:23 +0100

I support Bernard's proposal with Mika's change of MUST to SHOULD. I don't
see that this change allows damaging behaviour because the next sentence
clearly precludes sending to a router.

Philip

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:59:53 +0700

Date:        Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:35:23 +0100
    From:        "Philip Nye" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <000b01c3724a$2350a560$131010ac@aldebaran>

  | I support Bernard's proposal with Mika's change of MUST to SHOULD. I don't
  | see that this change allows damaging behaviour because the next sentence
  | clearly precludes sending to a router.

Yes, though that of course is meaningless in this context - if something
answers an ARP, you can't tell whether it is a router or not.   The only
possible applicability of that prohibition would be from sending to
something that you have configured as a router, or have learned as a
router using some kind of router discovery mechanism.

If a router chooses to proxy-arp reply for an off link address, there's
nothing that a local node can do but send the packet to the address
received, nor is there any reason to expect or even desire it to do
otherwise.

kre