On (06/26/18 13:30), Ka-Cheong Poon wrote: > > My answer to this is that if a socket is not bound to a link > local address (meaning it is bound to a non-link local address) > and it is used to send to a link local peer, I think it should > fail.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. I dont think this is forbidden by RFC 6724 - yes, such a packet cannot be forwarded, but if everything is on the same link, and the dest only has a link-local, you should not need to (create and) bind another socket to a link-local to talk to this destination.. > This is consistent with the scope_id check I mentioned in > the previous mail. If the socket is not bound to a link local > address, the bound_scope_id is 0. So if the socket is used to > send to a link local address (which has a non-zero scope_id), the > check will catch it and fail the call. A new conn should not > be created in this case.
