1 / 6

Default Address Selection for IPv6

This draft proposes automatic selection of source and destination addresses for IPv6 communication to enhance interoperability, with minimal requirements and configurable options. It is not limited to multi-homing scenarios and complements existing approaches. Recent changes clarify candidate set formation and zone index usage. Open issues include interface preferences and optimizing destination address selection. The draft is in progress, aiming for Proposed Standard status after addressing working group feedback.

lkim
Download Presentation

Default Address Selection for IPv6

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Default Address Selection for IPv6 draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-05 Brian Zill channeling Richard DravesAugust 10th, 2001 IETF 51 IPv6 WG Meeting

  2. Source Address Selection and Destination Address Ordering • Automatically pick “reasonable” source and destination addresses for interoperability • Minimal requirement for all implementations • Configuration/policy is possible • NOT just for multi-homing • Complement other multi-homing approaches

  3. Changes made in -05 • Clarification of candidate set formation for routers • Added explanatory text about candidate sets • Replaced usage of scope id with zone index • Augmented the first destination address selection rule

  4. Open Issue – Interface Preferences • Would like to be able to prefer certain interfaces in specific situations • Example: • Two machines which are both on the same native IPv6 subnet as well as an ISATAP (or 6over4) subnet. • Solution: • Prefer native interfaces over non-native? • Arbitrary interface preferences?

  5. Open Issue – Destination Rule #1 • Current text is confusing • Want to convey that implementations should avoid destination addresses that are presently known to be unreachable • Don’t mean to convey that implementations should actively determine reachability before ordering

  6. Where are we now? • Draft went through working group last call • 04 draft addressed last call issues • 05 draft addressed interim meeting issues • 06 draft in progress • Rough consensus at Interim Meeting • Keep on standards track • Author would like to move towards PS

More Related