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

Arifumi Matsumoto <> Mon, 26 July 2010 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7AA3A6A58 for <>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.377
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.223, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wnedOCoS3MrT for <>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:fa8::25]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817BE3A6A04 for <>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6QEKUHX075283; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:20:31 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Arifumi Matsumoto <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:20:30 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 ( [IPv6:::1]); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:20:33 +0900 (JST)
Subject: Re: [addr-select-dt] slide to 6man presentation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPv6 Address Selection Design Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:20:15 -0000


thank you for comments.

On 2010/07/26, at 23:10, wrote:

> I wonder if you should refer to MIF WG also reviewing WG? Depending on rechartering results, MIF may be working with DHCP based routing distributions etc and might be well interested in this.

Yes, I will.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

> Best regards,
> Teemu
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [mailto:addr-select-dt-
>>] On Behalf Of ext Arifumi Matsumoto
>> Sent: 26. heinäkuuta 2010 13:59
>> To: Arifumi Matsumoto
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [addr-select-dt] slide to 6man presentation
>> Let me send the ppt and key versions for editing.
>> Regards,