draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-05.txt   draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-06.txt 
IPv6 Maintenance F. Baker IPv6 Maintenance F. Baker
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Updates: 4861 (if approved) B. Carpenter Updates: 4861 (if approved) B. Carpenter
Intended status: Standards Track Univ. of Auckland Intended status: Standards Track Univ. of Auckland
Expires: August 25, 2016 February 22, 2016 Expires: August 25, 2016 February 22, 2016
Routing packets from hosts in a multi-prefix network Routing packets from hosts in a multi-prefix network
draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-05 draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-06
Abstract Abstract
This document describes expected IPv6 host behavior in a network that This document describes expected IPv6 host behavior in a network that
has more than one prefix, each allocated by an upstream network that has more than one prefix, each allocated by an upstream network that
implements BCP 38 ingress filtering, when the host has multiple implements BCP 38 ingress filtering, when the host has multiple
routers to choose from. It also applies to other scenarios such as routers to choose from. It also applies to other scenarios such as
the usage of stateful firewalls that effectively act as address-based the usage of stateful firewalls that effectively act as address-based
filters. This host behavior may interact with source address filters. This host behavior may interact with source address
selection in a given implementation, but logically follows it. Given selection in a given implementation, but logically follows it. Given
skipping to change at page 4, line 27 skipping to change at page 4, line 27
| | | |
+--+---------+--+ +--+---------+--+
| MIF Host | | MIF Host |
+---------------+ +---------------+
Figure 1: Hypothetical MIF interconnection Figure 1: Hypothetical MIF interconnection
The proposal also differs slightly from [RFC1122]'s language of the The proposal also differs slightly from [RFC1122]'s language of the
Strong Host Model. The statement is that the packet will go to the Strong Host Model. The statement is that the packet will go to the
router that advertised a given prefix, but doesn't state what router that advertised a given prefix, but doesn't state what
interface that might happen on. Hence, if the router is a MIF router interface that might happen on. Hence, if the router is a multi-
and is using the same prefix on two or more LANs shared by the host interface (MIF) router and is using the same prefix on two or more
(as in Figure 1), the host might use each of those LANs and meet the LANs shared by the host (as in Figure 1), the host might use each of
requirement. The Strong Host Model is not stated in those terms, but those LANs and meet the requirement. The Strong Host Model is not
in terms of the interface used, and would find a MIF router quite stated in those terms, but in terms of the interface used, and would
confusing: find a MIF router quite confusing:
(A) A host [MUST] silently discard an incoming datagram whose (A) A host [MUST] silently discard an incoming datagram whose
destination address does not correspond to the physical interface destination address does not correspond to the physical interface
through which it is received. through which it is received.
(B) A host [MUST] restrict itself to sending (non-source- routed) (B) A host [MUST] restrict itself to sending (non-source- routed)
IP datagrams only through the physical interface that corresponds IP datagrams only through the physical interface that corresponds
to the IP source address of the datagrams. to the IP source address of the datagrams.
However, comparing the presumptive route lookup mechanisms in each However, comparing the presumptive route lookup mechanisms in each
 End of changes. 2 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 7 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/