On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:20:48 +0100,
Francis Dupont [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The address selection draft authors have asked the WG to adopt
draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-02.txt as a WG document. Are
there any objections to the group adopting it? As with other API
whether it's a good idea to encourage sites to use address selection
as
a means of policy enforcement is a separate question. IMHO this is
not
sound architecture. but that's a separate question from the API.
I'm not convinced it's sound either, but I can't figure out a more
straightforward way
these choices MUST be made by applications, not by a separate policy
mechanism, because some applications cannot work unless the right kind
of address is assigned - and the OS cannot be expected to guess what
kind of address the application needs.
or to put it another way, if the policy is to
Selection API as a WG document?
these choices MUST be made by applications, not by a separate policy
mechanism, because some applications cannot work unless the right kind
of address is assigned - and the OS cannot be expected to guess what
kind of address the application needs.
or to put
Some applications MAY prefer one address over another, but most
applications
will not care. IMHO the best solution is to allow the OS (and
therefore
presumably the admin) to specify a default policy, but let applications
provide hints to the OS that other addresses may be better in certain
applications need a stable API that works the
same from one platform to another, not one that changes at the whim of
some network administrator. and we don't need an API that only works
for most applications.
The API itself will be stable, it's only the returned value(s) that may
change based
that's not a stable API, that's an API that behaves differently in
different environments - and the differences are sufficient to break
applications. it's simply not acceptable to give applications
temporary addresses when they need stable addresses. if an app says
it
needs a stable address,
I don't disagree, and I didn't mean to imply that this is relevant
to multihoming. But in practice I think these choices will be made
by a separate policy mechanism, not by individual applications.
Brian
Erik Nordmark wrote:
As we are seeing in the multi-addressing discussions in multi6,
As we are seeing in the multi-addressing discussions in multi6,
there is indeed strong pressure from applications people against
apps having to know anything at all about address selection.
This becomes even more true when you get into Java land.
So while this API is probably harmless, I agree
All,
The address selection draft authors have asked the WG to adopt
draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-02.txt as a WG document. Are
there any objections to the group adopting it? As with other API
documents, this would be Informational in nature.
Regards,
Brian Bob
In your previous mail you wrote:
The address selection draft authors have asked the WG to adopt
draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-02.txt as a WG document. Are
there any objections to the group adopting it? As with other API
documents, this would be Informational in
11 matches
Mail list logo
