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
