Re: [Autoconf] Next steps?

Hello folks,

Teco's wording matches my understanding also.  Anyway,
I think when it comes to solutions, we'll be able to see
whether or not a link-local solution is "competitive"
with other solutions.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 3/22/2010 4:02 PM, Teco Boot wrote:
> Jari,
>
> The address model doesn't discourage the use of IPv6 link-local
> addresses. It explains the limitations of it and encourage the
> WG to primarily focus on configuring IP addresses that are
> not IPv6 link-local. Small but essential difference.
> IPv4 link-local addresses are discouraged.
>
> My BRDP proposal runs on RA. I could change it to run on PacketBB
> or RFC4861 could be updated. Or I keep the usage of link-local.
> I'll pick the WG preference on this. And check what ROLL RPL is
> doing.
> BRDP does configure non-link-locals.
>
> Regards, Teco.
>
>
> Op 22 mrt 2010, om 22:46 heeft Jari Arkko het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Alex,
>>
>>> In the solution space I am interested in the use of link-local addresses
>>> and of multicast link-scoped addresses.
>>>
>>> I hope these are not forbidden by the IPv6 addressing architecture
>>> document, which seems to be sent to the IESG now.
>>
>> Actually, I *do* want to see the working group's solutions build on top of the address model that we have just completed. And it does discourage the use of link-local addresses. Lets not return to that discussion, I would be more interested in discussing what gaps we have the technology and what possible solutions we might need to do.
>>
>> Jari
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Autoconf mailing list
>> Autoconf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>