Re: RFC3484 destination address selection rule 2 is buggy

Fred,

On 2008-03-19 01:33, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2008, at 5:10 AM, Gabi Nakibly wrote:
...

> Similarly, there is no sense using a ULA source address unless the  
> destination is in the same ULA. If the destination is a global  
> address it might or might not be able to reply, but the sender can't  
> tell.

No, that isn't the case in at least two instances I can think of

1. An enterprise network whih for historical reasons is running
more than one ULA prefix - I would expect them to be fully
routed (and longest match would work).

2. An enterprise which is running a VPN with a business partner,
and is routing the ULA across that VPN.

So...

> 
> Hence, in sender address choice:
>    - use a link-local source address if and only if the destination  
> is a link-local address

Clearly.

>    - use a ULA source address if and only if the destination is a ULA  
> in the same prefix

I think that is broken. There's a reason ULAs are defined as global
addresses.

    Brian

>    - otherwise, use a global address
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------