Visual RFC.
ALL RFCs / RFC 6164
Read the RFC ↗
RFC 6164 / IPv6 ROUTER LINKS

Stop a datagram from bouncing back on its link

03

Some point-to-point media do not use Neighbor Discovery. A larger prefix can leave unused destinations that neither router owns, creating a ping-pong risk if the required forwarding check is missing.

RFC 6164 · § 5.1EXAMPLE
4 / 4
Stop a datagram from bouncing back on its linkA chosen ICMPv6error response is a different packet and subject to general error rules.No-ND point-to-point /126 comparisonA: ::2B: ::3source: 2001:db8:1::2destination: 2001:db8:1::1 (unassigned)original datagram offered to Bdifferent packet: ICMPv6 Type 1 / Code 3SHOULD generate error; suppression/rate limits apply/127 with both endpoints assigned has no third unused address
04
Distinguish an error from returning the original

A chosen response is ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable, Type 1/Code 3, toward the original source A. RFC 6164 says SHOULD, subject to general error rules; this error is a different packet, not the forbidden original forwarding.

Source for this drawing: RFC 6164 · Read RFC section 5.1 ↗

Protocol participantThreat or exceptionProtocol controlSimplified drawings · precise section references
New to this? Start hereA quick picture + helpful background

A message needs an address.

Think of a packet as a small addressed envelope. Devices pass it onward; transport protocols decide what delivery promises an application gets.

Helpful first, if these ideas are unfamiliar

These pictures are analogies to help you learn. The linked RFC explains the actual rules.

Related RFCs and changes

“Updates” changes part of an earlier RFC. “Obsoletes” replaces it. This list shows selected related documents.

KEY POINT

The ping-pong issue described here is for certain point-to-point links without Neighbor Discovery, not every Ethernet or IPv6 link. The separate risk example uses /126, with endpoints ::2/::3 and unused destination ::1.

  • The ping-pong issue described here is for certain point-to-point links without Neighbor Discovery, not every Ethernet or IPv6 link. The separate risk example uses /126, with endpoints ::2/::3 and unused destination ::1.
  • A router receiving a packet on a point-to-point link for a destination in a subnet assigned to that same link, other than one of its own addresses, MUST NOT forward it back on that link.
  • RFC 6164 §5.1 says it SHOULD generate ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable code 3 instead. ICMPv6 error suppression and rate limits still apply (RFC 4443 §2.4); the drawing’s Type 1/Code 3 is not an unconditional reply promise.
  • A /127 with both endpoints assigned has no third unused on-link address for this particular mechanism. It is not a claim that /127 prevents all routing loops or eliminates other forwarding checks.
DETAILS

Fictional documentation addresses within 2001:db8::/32. Bounded operator-chosen address examples, not a complete router, Neighbor Discovery, ICMPv6 or address-validation implementation.

Read the RFC section ↗

All chapters in RFC 6164

Drawing view

Scroll the drawing to see every part. Playback controls stay above it.

RFC 9700 / CHAPTERS

Chapters

For full details, tables, algorithms, and exceptions, read the original RFC.

RFC status and corrections ↗