Thank you Jinmei. I was thinking the lower label would win out, but now I realize that we are just looking for a matching label, and that a tie is produced by rule #5.
Best Regards, Tammy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:59 PM To: Leino, Tammy Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: RFC 3484 Question 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------