In message <863btir17s.fsf@athene.hamartun.priv.no>Tom Ivar Helbekkmo writes
>David Young <dyoung@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Here are two heuristics that will help NetBSD select IPv4 source
>> addresses that I believe will satisfy most askers on tech-net:
>
>OK, I'm posting as one of said askers.

Could you explain what you are trying to achieve here, please?

I have no clue what the motivation is here.  But I have a good working
knowledge of IPv4, and with that knowledge (but no idea what you are
trying to achieve), this entire proposal looks wrong, unacceptably
wrong -- to the point where I would back out such a patch, with
preduice, as being clearly wrong.

In particular, trying to force IPv6-style "link local" semantics on to
RFC-1918 or zeroconf addresses *is* incorrect, and will break valid
uses of IPv4.



>The alternative, I know, is to add a router to my hardware setup.  I'd
>rather avoid that, for reasons of cost, noise, heat, and power use.

Huh? That makes no sense whatever. If you already have a device
forwarding IP datagrams beteween your "internal (non-RFC1918) network"
and your "tiny /30", then that device *is*, by definition, a router.
Do you perhaps mean "standalone embedded NAPT appliance" instead??