I don't disagree, and I didn't mean to imply that this is relevant to multihoming. But in practice I think these choices will be made by a separate policy mechanism, not by individual applications.
Brian Erik Nordmark wrote: > > > As we are seeing in the multi-addressing discussions in multi6, > > there is indeed strong pressure from applications people against > > apps having to know anything at all about address selection. > > This becomes even more true when you get into Java land. > > > > So while this API is probably harmless, I agree with Francis > > its applicability is very limited. In fact, I would be tempted to > > argue for it becoming Experimental. However, I think it is perfectly > > valid for it to become a WG draft. > > The draft in question doesn't look at multiple addresses of the same > type/properties, such as multiple prefixes in the case of multihoming. > > The draft is about being able to choose between things like temporary and > public addresses, which is something which users/applications might care > about. And this is orthogonal to the multihoming aspects. > > Erik -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
