Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Improvement of Source Address Selection

3 messages, 3 authors, 2002-09-28 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Improvement of Source Address Selection

From: <hidden>
Date: 2002-09-28 04:14:42

Hello!
Alexey, I still am not clear, this belongs in the output routing logic
right?
...
where source address selection belongs.
Yes, it naturally belongs to the time when route is created.

This is just extending ipv6 routing entry with a field to hold
source address and, generally, making the same work as IPv4 does,
with all the advantages, particularily capability to select preferred
source address via routes set up by admin (RTA_PREFSRC attribute,
"src" in "ip route add").

Alexey

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Improvement of Source Address Selection

From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <hidden>
Date: 2002-09-28 04:25:10

In article [off-list ref] (at Sat, 28 Sep 2002 08:19:29 +0400 (MSD)), kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru says:
This is just extending ipv6 routing entry with a field to hold
source address and, generally, making the same work as IPv4 does,
with all the advantages, particularily capability to select preferred
source address via routes set up by admin (RTA_PREFSRC attribute,
"src" in "ip route add").
we need per socket preference.
can we do that with this?

-- 
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project [off-list ref]
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF  80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Improvement of Source Address Selection

From: Pekka Savola <hidden>
Date: 2002-09-28 04:31:28

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
Hello!
quoted
Alexey, I still am not clear, this belongs in the output routing logic
right?
...
quoted
where source address selection belongs.
Yes, it naturally belongs to the time when route is created.

This is just extending ipv6 routing entry with a field to hold
source address and, generally, making the same work as IPv4 does,
with all the advantages, particularily capability to select preferred
source address via routes set up by admin (RTA_PREFSRC attribute,
"src" in "ip route add").
Umm.. you sure?

Isn't putting this logic to routes an oversimplification?

Consider e.g. a dummy host which only have a few address (link-local,
site-local, global; the last two /64's) and, basically, a default route
(plus of course an interface routes for those /64's).

When talking to other subnets within the site (ie. those not on the /64)  
one would have difficulties parsing the source address from the default
route, as there would have to be at least two candidates there.

Am I missing something obvious here?

Alexey's approach should work in some simpler cases, but maybe not all
(stuff that's network prefix -independent like home addresses, privacy
addresses etc. would be different).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help