> Or would you have an already-sorted list of possible candidate addresses
> for each route in the order of preference?
I am not mad yet. :-)
What preference? You must select _one_ address, you do not need lost
> And recalculate always when address changes?
What address? Interface address? Routing tables used to be synchronized
> This is IMO a wrong approach from user's perspective. Perhaps not if the
> algorithm was run and e.g. additional, temporary "address selection"
> routes were created by kernel.
> > > (stuff that's network prefix -independent
> > I am sorry, I feel I do not understand what you mean.
> Hmm.. this depends on the interpretation of the concept above. If the
> list is refreshed always when addresses change or change state, this could
> perhaps work..
I am afraid I do not understand what "address", "state", "temporary" routes
etc you mean. It remained in your brains. :-)
Pekka, are you not going to sleep? (I am.) I bet when you reread this tomorrow,
you will not blame that my brains eventually falled to "parse error" loop. :-)