Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces

On Oct 30, 11:20 am, Rick Jones <rick.jon...@xxxxxx> wrote:

Routing behaviour.  End System behavour.  Two distinct behaviour sets
which may happen simultaneously in the same sheetmetal.  Need to think
of them separately from one another.

I agree. A router cannot assume that a packet it received is probably
for it. But an end system can.

As for why the strong end system model exists this may be as good a
starting point as any:http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122

Yes, it says:
"Be liberal in what you accept, and
conservative in what you send"
That is, don't throw away a packet when there is only one possible
thing it could mean.

Its only defense is:

With respect to (A), proponents of the Strong ES
model note that automatic Internet routing
mechanisms could not route a datagram to a
physical interface that did not correspond to
the
destination address.

This is in direct defiance to the robustness principle. Ignore
something because it can't happen, even when it most definitely *can*
and *does* happen, as this thread proves.

DS
.

Quantcast