Re: about draft-arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection-00.txt

Hi Francis and thanks for your input! A few responses
below:

>  - in 3.1 link-local IPv6 addresses, private (RFC 1918) IPv4 addresses,
>    etc, are excluded. IMHO this is a too strong constraint: only
>    ambiguous zone limited addresses should be excluded (note that
>    one (only) address cannot be ambiguous).

I'm open to doing this either way. I guess the issue is
accidentally attempting to connect to someone else's
10.0.0.1 address. I've heard that protocols in the
multimedia space already can run into this, however,
so this may not be a new problem.

How do others feel?

>  - in 3.2 s/the relevant default router/a relevant default router/
>    (links in a resilient multi-homed environment should be served
>     by more than one default router :-)

Ok.

>  - in 3.2 "Theoretically, it is also
>    possible for hosts to learn about routing failures for a particular
>    selected source prefix, even if no protocol exists today to
>    distribute this information in a convenient manner."
>    I disagree about the last part: there is a well known and simple
>    protocol to announce routing failures for a source prefix: deprecate
>    it, i.e., send RAs with zero preferred lifetime in the prefix info.

Ah, yes. Thanks.

--Jari