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

[Ulrich Herberg <ulrich at herberg.name>]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Charles E. Perkins
<charles.perkins at earthlink.net> wrote:
> [..]
> Of course!  They may apply only to a restricted subset of the
> wireless space of interest, and thus not solve the whole problem,
> but why wouldn't they be acceptable for the realm of their
> applicability?

I fully agree with Charlie. For a subset of deployment scenarios, we
can very well use LLs (for example, if they guarantee unique MACs, or
if we guarantee a good source of entropy). And this is said in the DT
draft:

"When more specific assumptions can be made regarding the connectivity
between interfaces, these SHOULD be considered when configuring subnet
prefixes."

So for _specific_ settings (like Alex's testbed), using LL will work
fine. However, the address model of the DT tries to be as _general_ as
possible and NOT to focus on a subset with specific assumptions.

Ulrich