On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 09:07:16PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Kurt Roeckx: > > > - A simular case is that you have 2 segments, 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.0.1.0/24, > > and you add a 1.0.0.2 and 1.0.1.2. Now you want clients to connect > > to the one from it's own segment, and fall back to the other if it > > fails. > > > > In this case rule 9 might be useful. But I would rather see that this > > fall under rule 2 and/or 8, and that such address would be considered > > one with a site-local scope. It could potentially also fall under > > rule 4. It's also something that can perfectly be configured in the > > policy. > > Scope is not defined for IPv4 addresses (neither in RFC 3484 or > elsewhere), so Rule 2 and Rule 8 do not apply in this case.
rfc3484 section 3.2 has: IPv4 addresses are assigned scopes as follows. IPv4 auto- configuration addresses [9], which have the prefix 169.254/16, are assigned link-local scope. IPv4 private addresses [12], which have the prefixes 10/8, 172.16/12, and 192.168/16, are assigned site-local scope. IPv4 loopback addresses [12, section 4.2.2.11], which have the prefix 127/8, are assigned link-local scope (analogously to the treatment of the IPv6 loopback address [11, section 4]). Other IPv4 addresses are assigned global scope. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
