On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Erik Nordmark wrote: > Thus I don't think we can do only hard requirements but that we also need > to be able to express preferences. And preferences + validation seems to be > able to solve what you can do with preferences + requirements. > > > ==> Please clarify whether you meant a macro like "IN6_IS_ADDR_LOOPBACK" or > > something "verify whether this address assigned on the node was of type > > X"? > > Given that there is an extensible set of flags it might make more sense to > define the validation as a function which take the flags as arguments > e.g. > inet6_is_addr(struct in6_addr *, uint32_t flags) > where the flags contain the SRC_PREFER flag set.
That didn't answer the question, but I assume you meant that the v6 address being validated must belong to the node performing validation? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
