Re: [Autoconf] Regarding Baccelli/Townsley Internet-Draft

[Ricardo Schmidt <super.ismiti at gmail.com>]

Hi!

That's OK!
I will re-read the draft then, and see if there is any pertinent comment.


Regards,
Ricardo Schmidt.


On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Charles E. Perkins
<charles.perkins at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Hello Ricardo,
>
> We haven't gotten to the point of deciding whether to
> use stateful or stateless address configuration yet.
> We're still trying to get started, although I guess
> things are finally resolving so that we will see some
> progress soon.
>
> My guess is that eventually solutions will be
> developed for both varieties, depending upon
> the network configuration and attachment.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
>
> Ricardo Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> Dear group members,
>>
>> I am in accordance with what is stated in the Internet-Draft
>> adhoc-addr-model-00 by Baccelli/Townsley.
>>
>> Using the same email, I would like to ask: does the group only
>> consider stateless address autoconfiguration? Or is stateful
>> addressing also an alternative?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ricardo Schmidt.
>>
>> PS.: some may be surprise with my email, but yes I am following the
>> group discussions.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Autoconf mailing list
>> Autoconf at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Ricardo Schmidt

MSc candidate in Computer Science / UFPE
BSc in Computer Science / UPF