All, I'm writing this e-mail representing the address selection design team.
We've worked and discussed much within the design team, and are about to make important choices to move forward. Our main draft revised this week covers whole issues, so I'd like you to review it. draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02.txt I extracted the main changes and the choices below. - separating policy merging issue from protocol work. The biggest design choice is separation of policy merging issue from the policy updating protocol. As we know it, policy table make sense as a whole. This is mainly because the precedence value is absolute. Thus, policy table merging always involve conflict. We can merge policies by a heuristic approach. But, there is no distinct/established algorithm for merging. So, we the design team thought we need experiences and time for merging process standardization, and we should move the base policy distribution work forward to meet the urgent needs from the field, while standardizing the merging algorithm as a experimental or informational RFC. - RFC 3484 default rule update Though, we the design team is not chartered for revising of RFC 3484, this issue is closely related to our work of policy updating. While analyzing the problem cases, we thought some of them should be solved by revising the default address selection rules themselves. So the design team also discussed about the revision of RFC 3484. The output was included in the existing revision proposal that I had put together. draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-03.txt We definitely need input from 6man people to move forward. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
