>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:28:54 -0700,
>>>>> "Kevin Oberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> That is, if we do not have any default router (hear from RA), we
>> should regard all IPv6 prefixes as on-link. To implement this trick,
>> we use the "default interface", and install the default route as an
>> interface direct route to the interface.
> I think the basic idea in the RFC may be reasonable. It only breaks
> when the link selected is loopback. Had the stack tried to connect to
> a physical link, this would have worked as intended, but loopback will
> always be the wrong answer if it is the link used.
Just to make it sure, even if you specify a non-loopback interface as
the default, you should still (usually) see a long delay before the
connection attempt by IPv6 fails, because this type of error is not a
hard error for TCP (like "no route to host"). The delay would be
about 1 minute. I don't think most users do not tolerate the delay,
especially when the IPv4 connection can be established.
>> Thus, for the moment, I agree that we should turn the default
>> interface off by default. For a longer term solution, we might have
>> to consider a better source address selection algorithm,
>> e.g. described in draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-04.txt. Then
>> IPv4 would be preferred in this case.
> This is certainly reasonable, too. But the step of not allowing the lo
> interface to qualify as the link for the default route seems like
> something that should be done as well.
> Of course, there may be some reason to want default to point at lo,
> but I can't think of a good one.
I don't have any objection to changing the default interface to a
non-loopback one, *if the default is ever defined*. I'm arguing that
it would be safe *not to specify the default interface by default*.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
