Vlad Yasevich writes: > Why do you want to distinguish between DHCP, manual, and autoconfigured > addresses?
In some deployments, DHCP-derived and manually configured addresses may have attributes that statelessly autoconfigured addresses do not, such as useful DNS entries. Stateless autoconfiguration _can_ (though of course usually does not) lead to address instability over time as well, where stateful methods are more stable. > If they are all of the same scope, then the longest prefix > match _should_ give you the best one to use. If they are of different > scopes, the scope rule will select the better address. If they're of the same scope and in the same prefix, then what? An alternative might be a new "rule 9" that compares address stability as a final tie-breaker. Would that be more acceptable? > Temporary addresses are a privacy subset of autoconfigured addresses, > and are thus spelled out in the document. I would think that if the scope and prefix rules alone were sufficient to distinguish DHCPv6 addresses from the others, then those same rules would be enough to distinguish temporary addresses, at least for the default (non-preferred) case. The mechanisms that create both are similar. In any event, it's a good thing that the operator behind the question (Alain Durand) is on the list. I hope he can follow up with specifics of the deployment problem he faces. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
