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

[sratliff <sratliff at cisco.com>]

Charlie, 

Absolutely correct. I agree 100%. And this is why I see this whole
discussion as a tempest in a teapot.

"discourage" != "cannot"

No one supporting the Bacelli-Townsley draft has said you can't use
link-local addresses. I support the Bacelli-Townsley draft, and most of my
deployments use link-local addresses. My deployments will continue to use
link-local addresses. But I do see that there are deployments where use of
link-local addresses is either problematic, or impossible. So I understand
the draft's language concerning "discouraging" their use.

But the draft DOES NOT say they CANNOT be used. That's one of the reasons I
support the draft.

Regards,
Stan


On 10/29/09 2:07 PM, "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> 
> Hello Alex,
> 
> I don't mind discussing with you.  But I really don't
> like having to point out your false statements so
> often.
> 
> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
>> [...]
>>> So far the only hard problem seems to be how to avoid squabbling over
>>>  whether link-locals are needed.
>>> 
>>> I am not sure why the proponents of necessity are so adept at
>>> ignoring the solutions that do not need link-locals.
>> 
>> It's very simple why: I have a prototype which involves protocol
>> extensions (RA) only on the parts of the System which use exclusively
>> link-locals addresses.  You forbidding link-local addresses equates with
>> forbidding my protocol extensions on the core of my prototype, makes
>> all break.
> 
> I _do not_ forbid link-local addresses.  I'm not even one of the
> document authors, and I didn't create that language.
> 
> But the document does not forbid link-locals either.
> 
> So how many times do you persist in making this false
> statement, and, worse, basing your repeated, iterated,
> verbose, relentless, and seemingly misguided objections
> based on the false notion that link-locals are forbidden?
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> It is not explainable by the existence of solutions that use
>>> link-locals, because such solutions are universally acknowledged to
>>> be useful in their realm of applicability.
>> 
>> Is this formulation ok, or an "only" missing somewhere?
> 
> ...???...
> 
>> 
>> If you keep that formulation as is - I agree with it!
>> 
>>> So why do link-locals insist on "their way come hell or high water"?
>> 
>> BEcause I don't want my prototype discarded by an illogical sense of
>> forbidding LLs.
> 
> And in what universe does that prohibition reside?
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf