On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:51:07PM +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.
Like selecting privacy addresses? -- Tim/::1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
