Hi All,
>The proposed text is trying to say that temporary addresses are preferable >but that there might be issues (such as applications having problems) >which consistitute a good enough reason to not follow the default. >Thus there is significant freedom for implementors to use their best >judgement based on their knowledge about the applications. Is it optional for a vendor to implement temporary addresses? Is it optional for a user to configure site-local addresses on a box (or perhaps even for a vendor to support them)? One reason that has been put forth for having a fixed set of address selection rules is that it will be possible for implementations to know what addresses will be preferred, and override that behaviour if desired. I'm not quite sure how this works when it isn't clear that all vendors will implement all address types (temporary, site-local, etc.), or that all address types will be configured for a given system. This particularly becomes problematic when optional address types (temporary, perhaps site-local) are preferred over required address types (link-local and global). Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
