yep...just wanted to look at it a few times.......
thanks
/jim
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Richard Draves wrote:
> Jim, that is in fact the default behavior. Looking at the source address
> selection rules in section 4, with the following addresses:
>
> D - global
> SA - site-local
> SB - global
>
> If SB should happen to equal D (ie this is loopback), then rule 1 says
> to choose SB. Otherwise rule 1 does not apply and you fall through to
> rule 2. Then Rule 2 says since
> Scope(SA) < Scope(SB), and Scope(SA) < Scope(D), you should choose SB.
>
> Rich
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Bound [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 8:16 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: Bob Hinden; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: W.G. Last Call on "Default Address Selection for IPv6"
> >
> >
> > sorry. Do not use site-local when sending to global if one
> > has a global source address should be the default.
> >
> > /jim
> >
> > On Fri, 25 May 2001, Jim Bound wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I may still object to it being a standards document. I
> > read roughly
> > > the 04 draft. My main issue is that I do not believe one
> > should EVER
> > > use a site-local address when sending to a GLOBAL address
> > unless one
> > > has a global address available. This does not appear to be a
> > > requirement of the algorithm, but I will check again on my
> > plane ride
> > > to Seattle. If it is I can't see any argument changing my mind for
> > > the default behavior.
> > >
> > > As far as it being standards tracked I will forgo that
> > issue and the
> > > reason is that precedence has been changed via ngtrans with some of
> > > the specs being standards tracked for transition and rich's work is
> > > better than a few of those in some instances and if they
> > are standards
> > > track then so should this be. I do believe though we in
> > the IETF are
> > > on a slippery slope here and need to be careful for any
> > pandora's box
> > > we have opened for lets say 2006 when we are working on
> > technology we
> > > may not for see now as standard vs informational. I should
> > probably
> > > write a position paper on this for the IESG and IAB as an objective
> > > treatise of IETF epistemology.
> > >
> > > As far as policy I hav changed my mind on this a bit
> > because I think
> > > we could cause a mamor problem with IPv6 if we don't at least give
> > > some default guidance to the vendors and market regarding
> > use of our
> > > multi scoped addressing architecture. My normal
> > laizze-faire view of
> > > our work here and my support or not support needs to be tempered in
> > > this case.
> > >
> > > But then we get down to what is right and wrong.
> > >
> > > Using same scope should be done as DEFAULT. Anything else is very
> > > very bad. My belief is that what Rich did. But want to check one
> > > more time on the plane.
> > >
> > > My other concerns are how the wording is in the selection
> > process and
> > > if the spec tells me how I must implement this in libc,
> > APIs, and most
> > > importantly how I would do the conditionals and data structures to
> > > support the draft. If it is left open and not forced by any IETF
> > > SHOULD or MUST I am fine with it for my reasons above. I
> > will check
> > > this on the plane too.
> > >
> > > As far as the issues not being resolved and the chairs
> > sending a last
> > > call. Well I will assume they belived the last call will flush the
> > > final discussions out on the list. But I do think all the attached
> > > issues should be resolved.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > /jim
> > >
> > > On Fri, 25 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >This is a IPng working group last call for comments on advancing
> > > > >the
> > > > >following document as a Proposed Standard:
> > > > > Title : Default Address Selection for IPv6
> > > > > Author(s) : R. Draves
> > > > > Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-04.txt
> > > > > Pages : 20
> > > > > Date : 14-May-01
> > > > >Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing
> > list, and minor
> > > > >editorial comments to the author. This last call period
> > will end two
> > > > >week from today on June 7, 2001.
> > > >
> > > > were there concrete agreement made about
> > standard-track/informational?
> > > > i find the following on IETF50 minutes, nothing else (correct me
> > > > if i'm wrong). were there any poll on mailing list made?
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/minutes/ipng-minutes-mar2001
> > > > .txt
> > > >
> > > > itojun
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Jim Bound thinks this shouldn't be a standard, should be
> > > > informational. Thinks is policy. This should be suggested
> > > > recommendation, not default.
> > > > Draves: Thinks this document does have implementation
> > requirements.
> > > > "Must" requirement have implementation consequences.
> > Bound: Doesn't
> > > > agree with some of the choices (e.g., selection of site
> > scope as source
> > > > to send to global destination).
> > > > (snip)
> > > > Nordmark: Thinks this should be standards track.
> > Splitting between must
> > > > and should.
> > > >
> > > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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]
> > > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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]
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
