> > > > The combination of flag X and not-X is not allowed - only one should be > > set at one time, becuase one packet has one source address. > > After talking to Vlad I now understand this, you're saying these are > invalid flags to set together: > > HOME | COA > TMP | PUBLIC > CGA | NONCGA > LARGE | SMALL > > From a C-code perspective, flag X and not-X would mean: > > HOME & ~HOME > > So I don't like the X/not-X text, I like the wording of "conflicting > flags" much better as used in a few other places. Maybe if the end of > Section 4 could say this: > > Setting conflicting flags at the same time results in the error > EINVAL. For example, invalid combinations of flags are: > > IPV6_PREFER_SRC_HOME | IPV6_PREFER_SRC_COA > IPV6_PREFER_SRC_TMP | IPV6_PREFER_SRC_PUBLIC > IPV6_PREFER_SRC_CGA | IPV6_PREFER_SRC_NONCGA > IPV6_PREFER_SRC_LARGESCOPE | IPV6_PREFER_SRC_SMALLSCOPE > > If flags are set as a combination of 'X' and 'Y', and if 'Y' > is not applicable or available in the system, then the selected > address has attribute 'X' and system default for the attribute 'Y'. > For example, a possible valid combination of flags can be: > > IPV6_PREFER_SRC_PUBLIC | IPV6_PREFER_SRC_LARGESCOPE > > There are other places that would need updating too.
Point taken. > > The default flags are described in section 7. For example, by default > > *_SRC_HOME is the choice of flag, ( it means COA address is not used > > by default as source address), but one can change that by using setsockopt() > > with *_SRC_COA. > > The default is to follow RFC 3484, right? :) Yes. > > >> IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses, which are IPv4 addresses in a form that > >> can be used on an AF_INET6 socket, are supported in this API. In > >> some cases the IPv4-mapped addresses may not make much sense because > >> the attributes are IPv6 specific. For example, IPv6 temporary > >> addresses are not the same as private IPv4 addresses. However, the > >> IPv4 mapped-address support may be useful for mobile home address and > >> care-of-address. At this point it is not understood whether this API > >> has any value to IPv4 addresses or AF_INET family of sockets. > >> > >>The second to last sentence here is confusing (regarding mobile), can > >>you explain what you meant? > > > > > > It was discussed in the ipv6 list sometimes ago that IPV4-mapped IPv6 > > addresses may be useful for home-address and COA for IPv4 > > and IPV6 interoperability. It is not well understood, but I think it > > is possible that a MIPv4 compliant dual-stack node may want to comunicate with a > > IPv6 address. > > Ok, then can this sentence be changed to give that information: > > "However, the IPv4 mapped-address support may be useful for mobile home > address and care-of-address." Ok. Thanks, -Samita -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
