Hi Ralph, > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Ralph Droms > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 9:07 AM > To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: Distribution of RFC 3484 address selection policies > > 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.
I for one believe RFC 3484 needs to be updated, largely because of all of the references to site-local unicast addresses. Presuming its deficiencies are deemed significant enough to warrant its updating, it seems we have a case for doing so even before we decide how to distribute it. > > 2. Is there a requirement for automated/administered management of the > address selection policy specified in RFC 3484 (or RFC 3484bis) in > hosts? > > Seems like there is enough interest in this thread for policy management > to warrant WG activity... Agreed. > > 3. What are the right semantics and the right vehicle for providing > management? > > TBD, once we get answers to 1 and 2? > > - Ralph > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
