Re: [manet] [Autoconf] call for consensus about link local address support

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

Hello Teco,

teco at inf-net.nl wrote:
> ...
> |In the past, some random number generators have been "bad",
> ...
>
> I'll repeat my opinion: I think DAD is optional. It helps for misbehaving
> nodes (or manual configuration). Wellbehaving nodes have the overhead.
> And thus I think it is useless. And harmful, because the risk of a DoS
> attack.
>   

We don't have to resolve this disagreement right now :-)

> And yes, random means random.
>   

No problem there, but the question is whether or not
random is _achievable_.

> |>  I don't see a reason why
> |> DYMO won't send messages with link-locals.
> |
> |That one I can answer.  It's because link-locals (almost by definition)
> |do not contain any information useful for the purposes of DYMO
> |(i.e., creating routes to destination IP addresses).
>
> ???
> The source IP address of a DYMO message has little to do with routes
> to be created. It is needed for 1-hop connectivity only.
> So link-locals work well for DYMO :-)
>   


If they are unique (and exist), they work great.  If they do not
exist, they don't work well for DYMO.  If they aren't unique,
they do not work well for DYMO.  I was never favorable
to restricting DYMO so that it would only be applicable in
situations admitting the configuration of unique link-local
addresses.

And, after all these years, I never regretted that decision.

Regards,
Charlie P.