Hi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[cut]
So a question then is whether that is enough or if there are
many cases where the full policy (including source address
selection) is needed. If the full policy is needed in some cases,
then we have to consider whether it's worth having two solutions.
I don't know myself, I think it requires further study.
I myself think that full policy is needed, of course.
But, even if you define a option only for prefix *preference*
for this framework of policy table, I wonder what the label
value should be.
As for IPv4 and IPv6 selection, even if you choose an arbitrary
label value, it doesn't have any effects on source address selection.
But, once that option is used for multiple IPv6 prefixes,
the label value has some effects on source address selection also.
So, as far as you use the policy table framework as it is,
IMHO, you have to distribute prefix preference with label value.
It's actually really disappointing that the label field is
completely undescribed and (from section 5)
"... clients need to convert this label to a representation
specified by each implementation (e.g., string)."
This is asking for incompatability, and doesn't serve any
useful purpose in standardization.
Particularly, there's no identification of _which_ implementation
the DHCP server intends, especially if it is not aware of the
current code version or OS on the host.
Perhaps this should be vendor specific information if used in DHC?
I can't see any use for it now, and it would need to be strictly
specified before providing use any clients.
Greg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
