ps & req in multi-prefix-env

[Ruri Hiromi <hiromi@inetcore.com>]

Hello,

For WGLC, I would like to confirm the description about "multi- 
interface" issue.

In the documents(http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops- 
addr-select-req-01) at section4(3) and (4), we wrote about comments  
given at IETF67.

(1) should or must?
 In our original requirement, we thought multi-prefixes with single  
interface.  Now we inserted  the additional description about the  
problems(s) to be considered at the situation of multi-prefixes with  
multi-interfaces.  My question here is; which is better to declare  
"the multiple interface issue SHOULD be considered?" and "the  
multiple interface issue MUST be considered?"?   which phrase is  
suitable?

(2) how? any ideas? references?
 If you already have an idea to solve this, could you feed us details?

====
(current description)
3) Issues that need big RFC 3484 change.
    - Multiple Interfaces Issues

      Dave Thaler gave us comments that multiple-interface hosts may
      face policy collision and distribution of dst address selection
      policy and src address selection policy should be separated.
      Also, per-interface policy table was proposed.

      After all, this is a policy collision problem.  To make a host
      have one policy table per network interface doesn't solve policy
      collision issue.  Source address selection is performed after
      output interface is selected, but destination address  
selection is
      before output interface selection.  In this case, destination
      address selection uses all the policy tables a host has, so here
      collision can happen.
      Separating destination address selection and source address
      selection will have a big change on RFC3484 policy table
      definition.  Though it may be a good idea to avoid source address
      selection policy collision.
====

Thanks in advance,
-------------------------------
Ruri Hiromi
hiromi@inetcore.com