Subject: comments to src/dst selection

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:45:05 +0900

I had no time to comment on it in meeting so I email it to you.

	How do we lookup policy table, when we are on scope boundary?

	(If I'm wrong please corret) policy table should have scope with
	addreseses so that we can handle cases for scope boundary (or zone
	boundary) router.  scope id must always meet whenever they are
	specified.  like:

	::1/128			50	1	1
	fe80::%loopback/10	40	2	2
	fe80::%ether0/10	40	3	3
	fec0::%kame/10		30	4	4
	fec0::%wide/10		30	5	5
	::/0			20	6	6
	2002::/16		10	7	7
	::/96			0	8	8

	Looking up policy table for fec0::1%kame would pick 4th item on the
	table.

	I should also note that there are ethernet cards with universal/local
	bit set to local.  I think we can't use u/l bit to determine anonymous
	address (for privacy).  I vote for deprecating non-anonymous addersses.

itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:19:44 -0600

Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:

> I vote for deprecating non-anonymous addersses

I'm definitely and strongly against this. I am totally happy for everyone
to know my IEEE address, in fact I had it in my .sig file for a while.
From the point of view of a corporate network manager who needs to track
assets as they move around the corporation, anonymous addresses would be
a disaster.

We have to offer an anonymous alternative for those who want this degree
of privacy, but it should be simply an alternative to the normal type
of address. And I think it should be a config option whether anonymous
addresses get priority.

  Brian

---

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:40:31 +0900

>assets as they move around the corporation, anonymous addresses would be

	Sorry I was unclear.  I should have written like this:
	for doing anonymous address, I would vote for a configuration where
	we mark non-anonymous addresses as "deprecate" IPv6 address.

	There were 3 plans for supporting privacy thing from rich's slides,
	they are:
	- mark non-anonymous address as "deprecate" address so that we don't
	  use it as source
	- use u/l bit
	- implementation remembers which address was configured for privacy
	  thing
	I voted for the first one.

	Again, sorry for confusion.

itojun