Re: [babel] I-D Action: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-01.txt

[Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]>]

> I can see questions about using a dummy address, since it implies
> multiple routers with the same address. But I really don't see any
> problem with a dynamically allocated IPv4 address (a la RFC 3927) as
> another example of a way to meet the requirement.

Ok, let's see if I read the group right.

1. David suggests that I mention 192.168.0.8, the dummy address assigned
   for 4rd (RFC 7600).

2. Donald wants me to suggest dynamic allocation from the RFC 3927 range.

Concerning 1, the current draft explicitly uses the term "dummy address",
which is a nod in David's direction.  On the other hand, I'm a little
reluctant to mention RFC 7600 explicitly, since I'd rather we avoid being
associated with packet translation techniques.  Yuck.

Concerning 2, I'm going to add a mention of dynamically drawn addresses,
but I'm going to avoid mentioning 3927 explicitly, since I'm not sure that
using 3927 addresses outside of the local link is legit.  Additionally,
doing otherwise might imply that the conflict detection and defense
mechanisms in that document are applicable (or desirable) in our context.

Ok?  If not, yell!

-- Juliusz