At Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:40:24 -0600,
"Leino, Tammy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ::/0 is going to cover all addresses that aren't covered explicitly
> by some other prefix in the Default Policy Table, right?
Yes.
(Continuing to your next question)
At Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:19:36 -0600,
"Leino, Tammy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The revelation that ::/0 covers all addresses by default still
> leaves questions unanswered for me.
> Example 3:
>
> Candidate Source Addresses: 2001::2 or fe80::1 or 10.1.2.4
> Destination Address List: 2001::1 or 10.1.2.3
> Result: 2001::1 (src 2001::2) then 10.1.2.3 (src 10.1.2.4) (prefer
> higher precedence)
>
> The outcome is based on higher precedence, but the example is not
> checking the labels first. Rule 5 checks labels and Rule 6 checks
> precedence. Wouldn't the label of 2001::1 be 1? Also, wouldn't we
Yes.
> Also, wouldn't we
> create an IPv4-mapped address from the IPv4 address and return a
> label of 4?
Yes.
I don't really understand the point of your question...are you asking
why the selection process doesn't stop at Rule 5? If so: since both
of {dst=2001::1, src=2001::2} and {dst=10.1.2.3, src=10.1.2.4} have
matching labels (1 and 4 respectively), Rule 5 doesn't make a tie
break. Hence Rule 6 applies.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
