On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 神明達哉 wrote: > > It is not clear enough which one should be preferred in the following > > situation: > > against a global destination address, > > A: a link-local address on the outgoing interface (assuming that the > > interface does not have a larger-scope address) > > B: a global address on another interface > > > > according to the address selection draft, we'll choose B. And I think > > it is a reasonable decision, or at least not a "very bad" choice. > > How badly would you have to much up your routes to get into this > situation? How many *real* (non-erroneous) usage scenarios are there? This should apply to any p-t-p link; I see no reason to assign global addresses on p-t-p interfaces if the nodes on each side have global addresses assigned on other interfaces. -Nathan -- +-------------------+---------------------+------------------------+ | Nathan Lutchansky | lutchann@xxxxxxxxxx | Lithium Technologies | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | I dread success. To have succeeded is to have finished one's | | business on earth... I like a state of continual becoming, | | with a goal in front and not behind. - George Bernard Shaw | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
Attachment:
pgprkQUpXaTYz.pgp
Description: PGP signature