Re: [addr-select-dt] slide to 6man presentation

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> > The synthesized addresses probably should be prioritized below public
> IPv4. When comparing synthetic IPv6 to private IPv4, its maybe a matter
> of taste - assuming ALGs are in place in NAT44 and NAT64 (general
> preference for IPv6 could win also).
> 
> So, you mean
>  global IPv4 should be prioritized than synthesized IPv6 address.
>  but, private IPv4 may not be prioritized than synthesized IPv6
> address.

Yes, truly global IPv4 should be higher (hence avoids all NATtting).

> The RFC3484 revision draft also include a proposal that private IPv4
> address should be scoped global. So, if we follow it, we should not
> differentiate the preferences of global and private.

Hence private IPv4 would be considered higher than synthesized IPv6 using WKP? That is fine, probably NAT44 is more reliable than NAT64 (and may have better ALG support).

> > The prefix used for synthetized IPV6 addresses (if not using well-
> known-prefix (WKP)) would need to be dynamically detected..
> 
> The host itself does not need to detect it, if the NSP distribute an
> appropriate policy table for it.
> Re. WKP, we should have to put it in the default policy table.

Ok WKP could be low, and NSP could be distributed with policy table. And isn't it so that if some module on a host learns NSP (e.g. DNS resolver or DHCP or RA), it can modify the policy table accordingly (hence locally generated policy).

Best regards,

Teemu