Re: A comment about RFC 3484 address selection
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 09:07:16PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx:
>
> > - A simular case is that you have 2 segments, 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.0.1.0/24,
> > and you add a 1.0.0.2 and 1.0.1.2. Now you want clients to connect
> > to the one from it's own segment, and fall back to the other if it
> > fails.
> >
> > In this case rule 9 might be useful. But I would rather see that this
> > fall under rule 2 and/or 8, and that such address would be considered
> > one with a site-local scope. It could potentially also fall under
> > rule 4. It's also something that can perfectly be configured in the
> > policy.
>
> Scope is not defined for IPv4 addresses (neither in RFC 3484 or
> elsewhere), so Rule 2 and Rule 8 do not apply in this case.
rfc3484 section 3.2 has:
IPv4 addresses are assigned scopes as follows. IPv4 auto-
configuration addresses [9], which have the prefix 169.254/16, are
assigned link-local scope. IPv4 private addresses [12], which have
the prefixes 10/8, 172.16/12, and 192.168/16, are assigned site-local
scope. IPv4 loopback addresses [12, section 4.2.2.11], which have
the prefix 127/8, are assigned link-local scope (analogously to the
treatment of the IPv6 loopback address [11, section 4]). Other IPv4
addresses are assigned global scope.
Kurt
Reply to: