quoting David's susggestion again:

In message <20050413172910.GM6156@che.ojctech.com>, David Young writes:

>[...]
> Actually,
>I think that the the IPv4 address selection should resemble IPv6 address
>selection, where the "scope" of the destination address is considered
>(global, link- or site-local), and a source address with the same scope
>is preferred.  IPv4 should likewise prefer a private sources (192.168/16,
>10/8, ...) when the destination is private, a link-local (169.254/16)
>for link-local destinations, and global source for a global destination.

As Thor noted in message, <20050413213934.GA14667@panix.com>, this
idea does violence to RFC-1122 ``Strong ES'' model, which many of us
rely on to a greater or lesser degree.

Yet in message <20050423062817.GH27204@che.ojctech.com> you continue
to ask for any examples of what your idea breaks.  David, that seems
awfully close to knowing, deliberate, dishonesty to me.


>Make sense?

To someone who groks IPv6 but who is ignorant of RFC-1122 and its
strong-ES/weak-ES distinction, I guess maybe it does make sense. To
someone familiar with RFC-1122, and who also relies on some form or
other of Strong-ES, it's bleeding *obvious* that your idea doesn't
make sense. As presented above, it's not even worth discussing.

David, which do you think is a better reference: RFC-1122 and those
who rely on it, or your own perosnal opinion on the merits of forcing
IPv6-like behaviour onto IPv4, and to Hell with what RFC-1122 says?