Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address model

["Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins at earthlink.net>]

Hello Alex,

Some comments and corrections below...

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> There are number of issues which have been discussed recently about each
> document.
>
> I know for my own point, but not sure how to re-make it.  If I make it
> again and gets lost then it's a waste of time.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-03
>
> 1.  I think Charles had text proposal to me and onlist about replacing
> "undetermined properties" and that proposal sounded better to me, except
> that he assumed that an LL address is derived from link-layer
> characteristics (the MAC adddress),
I did not assume this.
> and thus he discarded LLs
I did not discard LLs
> ; at which
> point I disagreed saying that not discard LL, because LL can be like
> fe80::1.
I pointed out that this was totally irrelevant.

> I think he got tired of me at that point so we
> left it there.
If I stopped discussing when I was tired, you might
not have heard from me for many many months.

>   LAter Charles repeatedly said he had nothing particular against LLs.
Later, and earlier, and even earlier, and ...
> 2.  Also - I strongly oppose "discouraging LL IPv4" which the current
> baccelli draft says.  Just type ifconfig or ipconfig on your offtheshelf
> machine with wireless interfaces and see the IPv4 LL in action.  I 
> think that's support enough.

Is that a valid metric for utility in a wireless ad hoc network?

> 3.  I also oppose in draft-baccelli the exclusive use of /128 prefixes,
> it makes no sense, I could explain further if listened, or noted in an
> issue tracker.

It makes a lot of sense.  In fact it makes enough sense so that
the multiplicity of early proposed solutions to the problem could
be developed into standards.

If only.



Regards,
Charlie P.