IPv6 Router Alert breaks forwarding

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉]

At Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:25:47 +0100,
Andrew McDonald <andrew at mcdonald.org.uk> wrote:

> > The behavior looks reasonable, but I'd code it more explicitly with
> > some comments so that the intent is clear and others can correctly
> > modify it for future extensions.  A possible patch to implement it is
> > pasted below.  One thing I'm not really sure is whether someone is
> > using (or has used) other predefined alert values:
> > 
> >          1        Datagram contains RSVP message.
> >          2        Datagram contains an Active Networks message.
> > 
> > (I guess you're now going to use values 3-35 per RFC3175).
> > 
> > If there is a user, we need to be careful not to break compatibility.
> 
> That patch looks good to me.
> 
> I think RSVP is the only other potential current user (and most likely
> without RFC3175 support). There appears to be some basic support for
> IPv6 in the ISI RSVPd implementation (untouched since 1999), but from a
> quick look at the code it is not clear whether they actually use the
> IPv6 router alert anyway. It predates RFC3175. If you want to be very
> conservative in changing behaviour you might want to include RSVP, but
> it seems unlikely that anyone is using it.
> 
> The only reference I know of for the Active Networks use is a published
> paper (and the reference in RFC2711). I don't know of any running code.

Okay, if no one else objects to it, I'll commit the change.

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp