Are there any RFCs for address selection for IPv4

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

--------
Rodney W. Grimes writes:

> > Does anybody know why we put a (ipv6)LL on loopback interfaces ?
>
> I believe someplace in the bowls of all the IPv6 specs this
> is a requirement.  I could not find it quickly though.

I'm not seeing Linux doing it for instance ?

> Question:  Should we allow a route to have a next hop of a LL(ipv4)?
> Reason:  RFC3927 2.6.2:
> 	The host MUST NOT send a packet with an IPv4 Link-Local destination
> 	address to any router for forwarding.
>
> So, arguably, it is a violation to allow the default route to have
> a LL next hop for ipv4.  For that matter, it is a violation to allow
> ANY ipv4 LL address to be the next hop in the routing table(s).

You are reading that wrong.

It is OK to have a LL as next-hop.

It is not OK to send a packet with dst=LL to any next-hop.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.