On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 08:11:11PM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote: > For my own part I don't really see the point of using anything but a > link-local address on a routerless subnet. So whatever the spec says, I > think this is a bit of a moot point. > > Do y'all see some reason why a link-local address wouldn't do the job in > this situation? Link-local addresses are not comfortable in DNS zones without playing dirty tricks, and it might not be clear to an application at that layer which interface the link local address is applicable to. The hosts are not necessarily "off net" beacuse they may have multiple interfaces, or multiple virtual points of attachment. RFC4193 addresses are more likely to be used in this scenario than link-local addresses. In addition, there's the case where the network is online and running, but the router is offline for the time being. In this situation, the client becomes dependent upon the router(s) in order to be able to talk with the rest of the (working) network, which violates the law of least astonishment for the user. -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
pgpPu9yUheYc7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg