Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:23:00 +0000 From: Alex Yong <annonymouse+freebsd@gmail.com> To: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?SklOTUVJIFRhdHV5YSAvIBskQj9ATEBDIzpIGyhC?= <jinmei@isc.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strong host model in IPv6? Message-ID: <CAJW_4zAJ8915SjoYZFnf4hZNF30hAxLNPL2DpwOMheJnHEOuwA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <m2haxwgvln.wl%jinmei@isc.org> References: <CAJW_4zCUuSFS9A4P-SB41P=b=M%2BpTDL2zO9mQteHxmOJU98dtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJW_4zC-pMuX57xxc0fd6CNs5voT4Uc-=K1mbMaTEwNS6Q9NKw@mail.gmail.com> <m2haxwgvln.wl%jinmei@isc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10 March 2012 18:27, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isc.org> wrote: > I've not closely followed the most recent version of FreeBSD IPv6 > code, but the use of the routing table in ip6_input in the original > KAME implementation had nothing to do with the strong host model. It > was just for faster determination of whether an incoming packet is > destined to *any* of host's IPv6 addresses (on any interface, which > may or may not be identical to the receiving interface). > > --- > JINMEI, Tatuya > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. > Ah! That route lookup indeed doesn't ever actually compare the interface that route is configured for. For some reason I convinced myself rtalloc filters by interface - which is clearly wrong... Sorry for misquoting your text -- that's what I get for trying to be well prepared. My question still stands though, am I crazy in trying to have a strong model for v6 (does this for some reason not make sense?), does KAME already do this and I've just missed it, or (least likely) am I right in thinking it doesn't support it and this wouldn't be crazy? Many thanks for the help so far. AlexY
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJW_4zAJ8915SjoYZFnf4hZNF30hAxLNPL2DpwOMheJnHEOuwA>