Subject: draft-cpatel-ipv6-automated-policy-table-cfg-00.txt

From: "Chirayu Patel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:21:42 +0530

Hello,

I have submitted a new draft that specifies a procedure to automate the
updates to the policy table used in hosts for auto configuration. 

The draft is available at
http://www.chirayu.org/I-D/draft-cpatel-ipv6-automated-policy-table-cfg-00.t
xt

The abstract of the draft gives more details about the benefits of the
procedure.

----
This document proposes a method to manage the address selection policy
tables in network hosts using RA's (Router Advertisements). The aim is to
provide an easy method to network operators to control the src/dest address
used by the host in communication within, and outside of the site(s) in
which the host resides. Control of the policy tables allows 1) the user to
control the scope in which a host may operate, and 2) non-disruption of
intra-site traffic during renumbering caused by change in the global prefix
used by the site to connect to the Internet.

A major impact of the last benefit would be to provide one less incentive to
advertise routes to the stable network prefixes in the Internet.
----

I would like to hear what the WG thinks about it.

CP

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 19 Aug 2003 08:45:50 -0400

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:21:42 +0530

> I would like to hear what the WG thinks about it.

I think it's completely unacceptable to expect applications to deal with
multiple addressing scopes, whether or not there is any indication from
the network regarding "policy".  I also think that it's unreasonable for
the network to dictate such policy, since different apps on the same network
will have different needs.  I also think it's unreasonable for the network
to expect/demand that apps will select a locally-scoped address
over one that is globally scoped - if nothing else this breaks backward
compatibility.