At 11:48 PM 12/12/2001 +0100, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > Also, an implementation that has knowledge of the prefix lengths
> > associated to the candidate source addresses MAY choose to
> > limit longest prefix match to those particular prefix lengths instead
> > of doing it on the full 128 bits.
>
>I think the above description is insufficient for an implementor to understand
>what the implementor might optionally do.
>Thus I'm concerned that folks will read this and do something quite different
>than we intend.
I'll send clearer text.
> > Rule 9: optional tie breaker
> >
> > If the above rules failed to choose a source address, an implementation
> > MAY
> > either decide to pick a candidate source address randomly or to
> take the
> > smallest one in the lexicographic order. This rule is optional.
>
>I don't understand the problem this is trying to solve.
>I thought there was an argument (and perhaps not agreement) that predictable
>behavior (having a single host? all hosts with the same configuration?)
>pick the same source address for a given destination.
>
>The above doesn't solve that problem. So what problem is it trying to solve?
>
>Confused,
My recollection of the discussion is that some people think that
predictability is a good think and other think that randomness is good.
This text (maybe not very well formulated) intend to say
"If you think that predictability is not a good think, order randomly the
addresses,
if you think predictability is a good thing, then here is a way to
achieve it"
- Alain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
