Pekka Savola wrote: > Maybe the critical thing that has been missing in the RFC3484 > discussions has been "have vendors already fixed this? how? which > approach has worked and which not?"
When we were working on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-03, I prototyped the suggested solution of having a new rule 2.5 which avoids a non-link-local destination with link-local source address. As the draft says, though, this is just one possible solution. As Rémi mentioned on this thread, another interesting (and perhaps better) solution would be to simply treat rfc1918 addresses as global instead of site-local. This makes sense to me since most of the time, they're being used with NAT to communicate to a global destination. -Seb -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
