Hello Alex,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
LAter Charles repeatedly said he had nothing particular against LLs.
Later, and earlier, and even earlier, and ...
You have nothing against IPv6 LLs or nothing against IPv4 LLs or both?
BEcause current draft still says "discourage IPv4 LL".
Or when you have nothing against something it means that you actually
discourage it?
I am fine if the draft discourages LL. I am fine if the draft does
not discourage LL.
I only expect that the draft should make it clear that solutions are
acceptable if they do not use nor assign link-local addresses.
Why do I have to say this so many times?
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?
It's wireless links for adhoc networks - yes. It's 169.254. yes.
It's widely spread on your off-the-shelf machines - yes.
It generally works in nonspecialized ad hoc networks - no.
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.
Do we make 3 issues out of these or should I consider that you
convinced me and I give up?
It's not a matter of convincing. It's a matter of exploring
the facts. The only person who could possibly convince
you is you yourself. I do not see that happening for a
very long time.
Regards,
Charlie P.
