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

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

Ulrich,

Again and again and again. Can you check what "practical"
means? We are chartered for it. Not for "all" or "general".

It happens to be that I try to get MANETs deployed. 
All what I have around me and venders offer have no problem
with address uniqueness. To name a few problems: no standard
for prefix delegation, no MANET standard protocol with
link metrics, problems with scalability, multicast issues,
multi-homing, security and on and on.

See also Jari his last posting. This motivated me keep telling
what I am doing and what the problems are. This also makes very 
clear we shall stop boil the ocean.

Regards, Teco

>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: autoconf-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces at ietf.org] Namens
>Ulrich Herberg
>Verzonden: donderdag 29 oktober 2009 11:02
>Aan: Alexandru Petrescu
>CC: autoconf at ietf.org
>Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address model
>
>Alex,
>
>On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
><alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> My question is whether or not this type of use LL addresses working
>fine
>> in _some_ applications (in a restricted subset of deployment scenarios
>> in the wireless space of interest) is a valid case for AUTOCONF or
>not.
>
>I think it is definitely interesting for AUTOCONF to solve after we
>have been rechartered; but not at this time. We want to produce an
>addressing model that covers a general case, and is not specific to
>certain subsets of scenarios. After finishing work on the general
>address model, I am not against thinking about more specific models
>with more assumptions (i.e. unique MAC etc.)
>
>Ulrich
>_______________________________________________
>Autoconf mailing list
>Autoconf at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf