Subject: Re: [patch] source-address selection
To: David Young <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Mihai CHELARU <email@example.com>
Date: 09/05/2006 11:15:25
David Young wrote:
> For review, here are my latest patches adding a mechanism
> for enforcing an IPv4 source-address selection policy,
Great work ! Thank you !
> preference ranks by _source preference_; lower preference
> numbers are ranked more highly
Preference should do exactly the opposite. Higher preference for higher
rank. This is the logical way. If user sets an address without preference
it should default to 0.
> ranks each _source address_ by the length of the
> longest prefix it has in common with _destination
> address_; longer common prefixes rank more highly
Aye ! This is great !
> same-category determines the "categories" of _source_ and
> _destination address_. A category is one of
> "private", "link-local", or "other". If the
> categories exactly match, same-category assigns a
> rank of 2. Some sources are ranked 1 by category:
> a link-local source with a private destination,
> a private source with a link-local destination,
> and a private source with an "other" destination
> rank 1. All other sources rank 0.
> Categories are defined as follows.
> private: RFC1918 networks, 192.168/16, 172.16/12,
> and 10/8,
> link-local: 169.254/16, 224/24
> other: all other networks---i.e., not private,
> not link-local
Uhm, I don't understand this. Isn't common prefix enough ? Why is 224/24
(shouldn't be 224/4 ?) link-local ? Maybe you wanted 240/4 ? Also for
link-local I suggest adding 0/8. But the first question remains: why do we
need this ?