[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

(usagi-users 01178) Re: Is this a bug?



My case is:
The client has no global IPv4 addr and packet will normally go through some NATs. I am using prefix 2003, which is the tentative prefix from Microsoft.


Qingjun

At 09:23 2002-1-17 -0800, you wrote:

With 2002 addressing, things work properly.

Jim Fleming
http://www.RepliGate.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zhang Qingjun" <zhangqj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:43 PM
Subject: (usagi-users 01165) Re: Is this a bug?


> I am glad to learn that it's a bug which means that it should be fixed. > But anyone know whether this has/will be fixed? > > Thanks > > Qingjun > > At 09:38 2002-1-17 +0200, you wrote: > >On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Zhang Qingjun wrote: > > > But whether such kind address selection may cause some routing problem for > > > the reply packets? > > > >Yes, this is very bad IMO; this probably often leads to dropped packets > >due to ingress filtering; the draft says: > > > > It is RECOMMENDED that the candidate source addresses be the set of > > unicast addresses assigned to the interface that will be used to > > send to the destination. (The "outgoing" interface.) > > > >-- > >Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, > >Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" > >Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords > > >