Subject: RE: Node Requirements Issues 4, 5, & 6

From: "Richard Draves" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:03:10 -0800

> I have gotten a number of private mails saying that Default 
> Address Selection should not be mandatory. What is the list's view?

Of course I think it should be mandatory. Support for multiple addresses
is one of IPv6's great features but there has to be some standardization
to prevent it from being an unpredictable mess. Default Address
Selection is definitely needed.

Rich

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:21:30 -0500

> Selection is definitely needed.

support for multiple addresses is IPv6's Achilles heel.  
they need to be tolerated to make renumbering work, and LLs are
indeed useful for bootstrapping, etc.  but expecting multiple
addrs to solve the routing scalability problem (just to take one
example) was a grave error.    

I'm all for consistent behavior between implementations, but we're
deluded if we think that default address selection is going to 
magically make the problems that come with each host having 
several addresses of varying scopes/connectivity/lifetime disappear.
no set of default rules can cope with that complexity.

that and the current rules are broken because they favor scoped
addresses over globals.  scoped addresses should never be used
except as a last resort.

Keith