[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(usagi-users 03689) Re: Bug in order of multiple IPv6 addresses per interface? Newest added one is preferred in difference to IPv4
- To: pb@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: (usagi-users 03689) Re: Bug in order of multiple IPv6 addresses per interface? Newest added one is preferred in difference to IPv4
- From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:55:29 +0900
- Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <44E98F48.70204@bieringer.de>
- Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan.
- References: <44E94653.1040002@bieringer.de> <20060821.194253.07794662.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <44E98F48.70204@bieringer.de>
- Reply-to: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:47:36 +0200,
>>>>> Peter Bieringer <pb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>> I do not favor changing this so far.
> Hmm, would it be possible to implement a primary flag in the future?
> BTW: Does anyone know about the behavior of *BSD for this issue?
As far as I know, BSD variants don't have the notion of *explicit*
'first/primary' or 'secondary' address. But if your main concern is
to prefer particular addresses as the source address of outgoing
packets, you'd be able to achieve the goal by configuring appropriate
policy table entries (per RFC3484).
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
jinmei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx