--STPqjqpCrtky8aYs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 03:18:56PM -0700, Jonathan Stone wrote:
>=20
> I have no clue what the motivation is here.  But I have a good working
> knowledge of IPv4, and with that knowledge (but no idea what you are
> trying to achieve), this entire proposal looks wrong, unacceptably
> wrong -- to the point where I would back out such a patch, with
> preduice, as being clearly wrong.
>=20
> In particular, trying to force IPv6-style "link local" semantics on to
> RFC-1918 or zeroconf addresses *is* incorrect, and will break valid
> uses of IPv4.

How so?

As I understand what's being suggested, it's a form of policy to be
applied when determining the source IP of packets in the case where: 1)
the sending application has not bound the source of the packets, and 2) we
have multiple IP addresses on the outgoing NIC. We thus at present have an
ambiguity as to which IP to choose. So how is adding policy to pick one of
them going to break valid uses of IPv4? Those uses have no assurances at=20
present, so how will they get something they might not have gotten now?

Now, there may be points I misunderstood about the suggestion, but my=20
current take on it is above.

Take care,

Bill

--STPqjqpCrtky8aYs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCaYz/Wz+3JHUci9cRAgvfAJ0Y/ImaDuB5uDBTwbdGqbNnF34rzQCfehnK
ynsCecmbdGg11hFx6rsl9CY=
=HpsY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--STPqjqpCrtky8aYs--