John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 10:46 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[..]
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 thatthe RFCs are correct and Jeroen's analysis is incorrect?
I guess/hope he is just teasing ;)As I privately replied to Kurt already, RFCs are Requests For Comments, as such what I am giving is definitely a comment, and the only way to solve it for real and to give some guidance is to move this problem to v6ops (which I think is the most appropriate WG) and document scenarios that guide people on how to possibly configure a network using IPv6.
Of course people could also just get a good book and/or use common sense, unfortunately that is not always happening, especially the latter.
I hope it doesn't mean "the RFCs ought to govern, even when reality and experience seem to contradict them".
See my message to ietf@ + v6ops@ titled: "Draft on how to correctly configure servers and other hosts (IPv4+IPv6) (Was: problem dealing w/ ietf.org mail servers)"As RFC's can be updated as much as we want and they definitely are not final.
Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf