--NPukt5Otb9an/u20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 04:47:12PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>=20
> To me, an address that is truly an "alias" would never be used as a =20
> source address unless it is on the passive side of a TCP handshake.  =20
> But there are legitimate reasons for having multiple "non-alias" IPv4 =20
> addresses on an interface.  If we want to support both, then =20
> something needs to mark those alias addresses as such (I would call =20
> them "passive" addresses, myself).  The "passive" semantics I =20
> envision would map equally well to both IPv4 and IPv6, or any other =20
> address family, for that matter.

This behavior would be nice.

Take care,

Bill

--NPukt5Otb9an/u20
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

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

iD8DBQFCbaJJWz+3JHUci9cRAvkYAJ4tqGKs0LL9z/K/2jJImAHo+fNa/QCfYLpC
MuDJ8Bn2DWmud0yMOnmbYZk=
=tm+c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--NPukt5Otb9an/u20--