Subject: Comment on RFC1812 Update

From: "Tony Dal Santo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 18:26:32 -0400

While I don't disagree with the goal of this update, I don't
like the wording much.  In particular, as an implementor I would
wonder what the behavior should be if I did not supply the user
with the option.  The best I can get from this document is that
I would not receive them because the user didn't request it
using the nonexistent option.

I'm also a bit worried that "receive" may be a bit vague.  Does
this mean forward, deliver to the router's CPU, or both?  Equally,
what does "not receive" mean.  I think section 4.2.2.11 deals
mostly with local delivery, leaving forwarding to be addressed
in section 5.

Currently:

      Directed Broadcast - a broadcast directed to the specified network
      prefix.  It MUST NOT be used as a source address.  A router MAY
      originate Network Directed Broadcast packets.  A router MAY have a
      configuration option to allow it to receive directed broadcast
      packets, however this option MUST be disabled by default, and thus
      the router MUST NOT receive Network Directed Broadcast packets
      unless specifically configured by the end user.

My Preference:

      Directed Broadcast - a broadcast directed to the specified network
      prefix.  It MUST NOT be used as a source address.  A router MAY
      originate Network Directed Broadcast packets.  A router MAY have a
      configuration option which allows it to receive for local delivery
      (see Section [5.2.3]) directed broadcast packets.  If provided,
      this option MUST be disabled by default.  Lacking such an option,
      a router MUST NOT receive these packets.

Tony

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:40:24 +0400

Sorry... did I miss a thread here ?
Is there an update on rfc1812  ??

/pete

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:40:24 +0400

/pete