Robert, Not disagreeing there is affect to address selection. But no one should assume address selection will be widely deployed at this time. That remains to be seen. I think it will personally.
My issue is what we do with a deprecated address in our stacks regarding behavior and that resolution is not driven by address selection. That is all. regards, /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Elz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 9:30 AM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: Richard Draves; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Atsushi Onoe; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: need clarification of "deprecated" address > > > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:50:27 -0400 > From: "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > qcorp.net> > > Jim, all of this was pretty much settled almost a week ago, > all that remains > is to get the text modified (but as I don't think there's a > new version of > this doc in the works right now, I'm not sure when that will happen). > > Even the new text has been agreed, I believe. But ... > > | this has nothing to do with default address selection in > the IP layer > > The address selection draft is more than that, but "this" had > everything > to do with address selection - the "default" case is the one where not > using a deprecated address is the correct answer, in other > cases it isn't, > and that's why perhaps mention about not using deprecated > addresses might > be better in the default addr selection doc, and no-where else. > Unfortunately while putting it there is easy (for Rich) that > doesn't by > itself get rid of the text from 2462. And that text was the problem. > > | Also the discussion is for incoming transport layer > connections for TCP, > > Yes, but that was influenced by a decision made about what > was legal for > outgoing connections, based upon one reading of the doc. > The implementation > has been fixed since, and new text for the doc to avoid it in > future agreed. > > | SCTP, and I think we need to consider connectionless too. > > Yes, all the same issues (approximately) apply to connectionless. > > | Sure for applications but I don't think that is the discussion. > > They were part of it. You probably needed to read all of > the messages, > more carefully, before replying. > > kre > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
