--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 10:46 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote: >> [..] >>> However, this last address, >>> 2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not explicitly >>> configured on the sending server; instead, it is being >>> implicitly >>> configured through ip6 autoconf stuff: >> >> Which (autoconfig) you should either not be using on servers, >> or you should be configuring your software properly to >> select the correct outbound address. (I prefer to use the >> autoconfig one for 'management' and using a 'service >> address' for the service). > > > What a shame that's not what's in the RFCs..:-) Despite the ":-)", I think there is an important question here. Does it imply that this is a use case from which we should be learning... and then fixing the RFCs? Or that you believe that the RFCs are correct and Jeroen's analysis is incorrect? I hope it doesn't mean "the RFCs ought to govern, even when reality and experience seem to contradict them". john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
