Re: A comment about RFC 3484 address selection
* 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.
Reply to: