Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!ucbvax!LLL-MFE.ARPA!Provan
From: Provan@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: re: the big bug?
Message-ID: <8605230325.AA29122@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 22-May-86 22:31:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8605230325.AA29122
Posted: Thu May 22 22:31:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 05:40:07 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 16
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


what a happy coincident: i was just about to ask tcp-ip about this very
point when the subject suddenly popped up for me!

some implementations, the one i'm sending this from in fact, only
apply redirects to the particular connection they apply to.  for
example, a redirect for a host with multiple connections from here
will not cause any of the connections to change their route except
the one that actually sent the redirect packet.

on the other hand, i suspect there are sites that you could restrict
arpanet access for by sending a redirect and then not even bothering
to forward the packets.  it would probably take human intervention
in soem cases to get the routing entry out of the tables.
CC:     Perrine@LOGICON.ARPA,
	Tcp-ip@nic.arpa