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 > > -- > Tim/::1 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
