Zach, On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Zach Shelby <[email protected]> wrote: >[...] > Keep in mind that -07 uses its own definitions and model, which have little > chance of living on their own. So don't compare terminology from -07 with > the autoconf model. In practice, the autoconf model does not change how our > solution works. The design team is now starting to look at that, so please > be patient for -08. > > A couple clarifications: > > 1. We will initially only copy the autoconf model for our purposes. If it > goes forward to an RFC rather quickly, we may theb make a nomative reference > at some point. I at least strongly support that the autoconf model work is > moved forward as quickly as possible.
I agree to that. > > 2. The autoconf model very rightly points out that link-local scope (and > thus addresses) are of limited use. But it does not forbid them. We have > exactly the same setup in 6lowpan-nd as well. I fully agree. LLs are of limited use, but not forbidden in the autoconf addr-model. > > Let's not speculate too much on the autoconf model until we get -08 of our > draft out - and then you will see how the pieces fall together. Based on my > initial analysis it is a nice fit, but the devil is in the details still. In > practice we came to the same conclusions in this WG, but used slightly > different terminology (or it turns out we defined things like subnets and > links when we didn't need to). Yes, another agree. Ulrich _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
