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

["Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins at earthlink.net>]

\Hello Alex,

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Yes, we have an issue here.
>
> Many implementers on this list have often disregarded the fact that the
> LL address was there.  Because of that, let us continue this complete
> disregard and not say MAY LL, neither SHOULD LL, nor MUST NOT LL.  Just
> don't say LL - because they have always been completely disregarded -
> let us have this draft reflect that particular implementer situation.
> Disregarded in implementation, disregarded in the draft.
This is not responsive to the need.

> But don't say wrong things about them.

This is good advice, as always.

> > > (1) it doesn't scale to large domain,
> >
> > How large do you need?
>
> Hmmm, it can't become as big as the Internet is now.

Is that your test for utility?


> > > (2) can't connect to the Internet,
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Can we talk about it without going solution space?

It's mathematically proven that your statement is wrong,
by the mere existence of a counterexample.

> I think we should talk about it in an addressing model draft which does
> not disturb the non adhoc aware nodes (i.e. Internet nodes).
We already did.

Regards,
Charlie P.