On Wednesday 29 October 2003 14:49, Soliman Hesham wrote: > > I think this scenario is useful for IPv6 small-devices, so I > > don't quite agree > > with you all. > > > > I feel that we are undoing a lot of things and we will end > > up with no > > autoconfiguration features at all. This might be a good thing > > for sysadmins, though. > > => I don't think we're undoing any autoconfig here. This is > a clarification to avoid other problems without eliminating > autoconfig.
I quote yourself on a previous mail on this thread: "The problems of this assumption are discussed in section 3 of Alain's draft. The draft suggests that this assumption should be removed from ND specs. Here is the suggestion: [snipped but it's read as..."remove" and "remove"...] This seems like a reasonable suggestion, any objections?" As I've already said, I think that on-link communications might be a useful thing to have. > > > If I understand the onlinkassumption draft well, the main drawback > > of sending packets on-link is that some malicious party would > > be able to grab those packets. > > => IMHO, that was not the main issue. I saw bigger > issues in that draft. I thought the biggest two were: > > - impacts on address selection (section 3.1) So let's go to fix address selection instead of removing a nice feature. > - Address resolution delays (section 3.2) > I think that this problem doesn't deserve removing automated on-link communications. I realise that this issue implies that we are penalizing the well-configured IPv4 network. This is better than forbiding IPv6 on-link communications and moreover you might have similar delay penalties even with an IPv6 default router, if there's some black-hole on the routing system... Cheers. -- JFRH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
