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

["Teco Boot" <teco at inf-net.nl>]

Not agreed with suggested usage of LLs.
See my proposal for correction of the baccelli draft.
It specifies when to use LLs and when not, and applies 
to IPv6 in general. And hopefully, it stops the LL 
discussion, because everybody may agree on the text.

Regards, Teco

>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: autoconf-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces at ietf.org] Namens
>Ulrich Herberg
>Verzonden: donderdag 29 oktober 2009 9:44
>Aan: Charles E. Perkins
>CC: autoconf at ietf.org
>Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address model
>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>Autoconf mailing list
>Autoconf at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf