Questions and comments about the default address selection mechanisms:
1- About scope and deprecated addresses in source address selection:
Considering the way Rule 2 and rule 3 are specified, is it possible that a
deprecated address is selected rather than a non-deprecated with bigger
scope?
For example suppose that the destination address D has site local scope and
the outgoing interface has 2 addresses assigned: a site local address SA
which is deprecated and a global address SB which is not deprecated.
Applying rule 2 scope(SA)<scope(SB) and scope(SA)=scope(D) then rule 2
chooses SA.
Wouldn?t be better to choose SB in this case?
In order to do this an option could be to modify the rules like this:
Rule 2: Avoid incompatible scopes:
If scope(SA)<scope(D) and scope(SD)<=scope(SB) the choose SB.
Similarly, if scope(SB)<scope(D) and scope(SD)<=scope(SA) the choose SA
Rule 3: Avoid deprecated addresses
Rule 3,5: Prefer smaller scope.
If scope(SA)<scope(SB) prefer SA, similarly if scope(SB)<scope(SA) prefer SB
2- Final tie-breaker unspecified in source address selection.
If the 8 proposed rules fail, "some unspecified tie-breaker should be used".
In order to obtain predictable behaviour (specially considering that this
is included in standard track), wouldn?t be interesting to specify a final
rule that always select an address. (i.e. the smallest address or something
like this)
marcelo
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
