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

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

>Templin, Fred L wrote:

>Second, I want there to be flexibility to allow for
>"tethered" hosts that are always single-hop neighbors
>on a router's interface that otherwise has undetermined
>connectivity properties. That may mean that the router's
>interface may need to configure a prefix other than /32 or
>/128.

Yes, I deploy this stuff.

But proponents on the baccelli draft would say this is 
supported, as there is some determined connectivity.
I'm not sure this is valid argumentation, because I 
think the proponents know little of my MANETs.


But also for this case (same as LLs), I think it makes sense
we Autoconf work on for a maximum-length, global / ULA prefix. 
But the practical addressing model for MANETs shall dot say 
these are preferred. These are needed if nothing else is 
available and can be a stepping stone to acquire other prefixes.


Regards, Teco