> > > I have two possible designs for your consideration: A
> > > (simple) and B (more complex).
> >
> > Either one is probably easy to implement and use.
> >
> > I'm just wondering whether this type thing is the right
> direction to go with
> > the API? It requires each application to include a user
> controllable method
> > for choosing these settings.
>
> "require" seems a bit strong here. I don't think any applications is
> REQUIRED to use this interface.
That's right. In fact, I expect relatively few applications would use these
APIs, because I think the default behavior is right for most apps.
In general, I think users should not be be controlling the use of these
APIs. The application should know what makes sense. For example, if an
application knows that it is creating short-lived TCP connections and it can
survive the failure of a connection in case the host moves, then the
application might prefer care-of addresses over home addresses. But this is
something that the application knows, not the user.
Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
