[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Distributing site-wide RFC 3484 policy
Hello.
First of all, I would agree the PS itself.
And, I would agree the distributing address selection "hints",
but I am not in favor having the "policy" itself get distributed.
The end-node clients may have their own "policy" and/or implementation
details (e.g., an implementation may have special tunnel or
special (and useful) policy for the implementation), and they must be
taken into account.
And, only the "end-node" can know the full view of reachability.
Routers or other entity may suggest end-node to use another source address(es)
(or prefix(es)), but it can not be ultimate (or god's) order.
In that sense, we might need to solve this issue in conjunction with
rrg work.
Anyway, the draft contains a horrible error, at least.
We CAN NEVER specify zone-index from outside the box. It MUST be removed.
And, I would say, we must make it clear that the information is
"relative" or "virtual" and the end-node retain having final decision.
Regards,
In article <46A609C5.1050109@gmail.com> (at Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:16:37 +0200), Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> says:
> Thanks. So does v6ops have an opinion about
> draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-04.txt? It seems
> nothing will happen unless it's discussed here or
> in ipv6.
>
> Brian
>
> On 2007-07-23 21:18, Ruri Hiromi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The latest version of this draft is today Arifumi mentioned in his
> > solution document,
> > "draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-04.txt" and
> > "draft-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt".
> > We divided previous draft into 2 part, one for distribution protocol and
> > the other for problem statement.
> >
> > At first, we wrote that draft and presented in DHC-wg. DHC-wg chairs
> > suggested us that we need support from other wg such as v6ops. Then we
> > are here.
> >
> >
> > On 2007/07/24, at 3:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >> What happened to
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hirotaka-dhc-source-address-selection-opt-01.txt
> >>
> >> and is there any other proposal for site-wide distribution of
> >> address selection policy?
> >>
> >> As I said at the mike today, I really think we can't avoid
> >> such a mechanism. There *will* be sites running multiple prefixes
> >> (those too small to insist on PI space, but big enough to
> >> need multiple ISPs).
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > Ruri Hiromi
> > hiromi@inetcore.com
> >
> >
> >
>
--
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
GPG-FP : 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA