On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Andrew White wrote: > I prefer the behaviour specified by default address selection - pick the > smallest 'scope' which matches unless the application has a good reason to > do otherwise. > > Stability aside, the 'smallest matching scope' rule only fails for > applications that forward addresses out-of-scope. In this case, either: > > - forward names, so that you get all in-scope options, not just the one that > worked for the forwarder. > > - accept that your application is now delving into the routing space and > code accordingly.
That's not the complete picture. Addresses leak. They leak to others using the local scope, but without connectivity. I'd much prefer using globals first, because falling back to globals from first trying locals could take a long time (consider e.g. stupid firewalls who silently drop packets). This should not be an important issue, but I fear in practice, it is.. [...] > In a multi-addressing environment, applications must be ready to try > multiple source-destination address pairs until one succeeds. A source > address selection compliant gethostbyname will return the destinations in > preferred order (taking into account available source addresses). There is > an implementation question on what order the two dimensional destination and > source space should be searched. I think the order is specified: destination first, unless the application specified the source address explicitly. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
