IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] Next steps?

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Mon, 22 March 2010 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B720F28C1BE for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OchKiIha3ar2 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A749D3A67FD for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so2053585fxm.29 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.18.132 with SMTP id w4mr1867160faa.30.1269298982219; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-24-146.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-wireless-open-abg-24-146.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.24.146]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d13sm299247fka.32.2010.03.22.16.03.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:02:54 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D1D67D44-E5AC-4BAD-9F83-22B0D0111D39@inf-net.nl>
References: <1266925311.4036.71.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4B882EB5.4070605@gmail.com> <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Next steps?
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:02:48 -0000

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email