--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 10:46 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist
<kurtis(_at_)kurtis(_dot_)pp(_dot_)se> wrote:
On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this last address,
2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not explicitly
configured on the sending server; instead, it is being
implicitly
configured through ip6 autoconf stuff:
Which (autoconfig) you should either not be using on servers,
or you should be configuring your software properly to
select the correct outbound address. (I prefer to use the
autoconfig one for 'management' and using a 'service
address' for the service).
What a shame that's not what's in the RFCs..:-)
Despite the ":-)", I think there is an important question here.
Does it imply that this is a use case from which we should be
learning... and then fixing the RFCs? Or that you believe that
the RFCs are correct and Jeroen's analysis is incorrect?
I hope it doesn't mean "the RFCs ought to govern, even when
reality and experience seem to contradict them".
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf