On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 16:51 +0200, Stig Venaas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:06:40AM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > > > Seems to me the WG ought to work through these questions: > > > > > > 1. Is RFC 3484 adequate to solve the address selection problem? > > > > > > My guess is "no", because of its references to site-local addresses and > > > other deficiencies discussed in this thread. If the answer is no, the > > > first step for the WG would be to update RFC 3484. > > > > Rich seemed amenable to this when asked recently. In doing so, we > > should review default policy to minimise the requirement to change > > policy, e.g. fix the corner cases like ULAs+multicast being broken. > > Also worth checking if there are address selection problems that 3484 > doesn't address. > > Stig
Mark Thompson pointed out: > > First, the lack of field definition for labels has seen different > OSes use different datatypes for the label, from string through > stringified-integer to integer. Any cross-platform policy > specification protocol would need to cater for this inconsistency. > Perhaps this is something that a RFC3484-bis could address when > making that spec compliant with the requirements of RFC3879 Section 4? > > Also, RFC3484 permits the specification of zone index in the policy > (c.f section 2.1). Section 6 of RFC4007 explicitly states that zone > indices are strictly local to the node, making any centralisation of > RFC3484 policy "challenging". [aside: OK, so administrators could > harvest index data for links on which scoped-policy is required and > then maintained in the DHCPv6 server as specific for that node, but > there's no protocol for that harvesting and I've not surveyed > sufficient implementations to determine whether indexes persist and > are consistent between reboots] - Ralph -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
