Subject: Proposed changes to the document

From: Brad Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:04:08 -0700

(I know this will cause a bit of heartburn):

General: As has been pointed out, IPv4LL addresses (as defined here) are not 
link local addresses but subnet local addresses (SL?).  I feel we need to change 
the terminology in the document because LL implies a level of security that 
doesn't exist.  Almost everyone outside these discussions (and it seems many 
inside them) will assume that the address doesn't pass beyond the local network.

Section 1.2, Applicability: Limiting this draft to 802 media means that this 
draft may not be applicable in a home network.  Bluetooth, HomePlug, HomePNA, 
IEEE 1394, and USB have all been promoted as the technology to network the home 
(as opposed to traditional 802 media).  Any proposal that limits itself to 802 
media and claims to support home networking is just bad (especially since IP 
over HomePlug and HomePNA is deployed, and 1394 is being pushed by some of the 
large CE companies).

Section 5, Security Considerations: It should be pointed out that because these 
are subnet local addresses, their "physical" scope may easily range far beyond 
what a user considers the "local network".  This will occur in any WAN/MAN that 
uses bridging rather than routing at the leafs (an example of this is the 
original CableLab's cable modem), the "LL" address may (unless specifically 
blocked by something) will have scope over the entire subnet, including other 
homes or businesses.  "LL" devices will be open to attacks that aren't expected 
by the (naive) user.  (Of course, implementing security on a zeroconf device is 
somewhat of an oxymoron and having to tell a (naive) user that their new device 
will randomly disappear from their home network is bad.)

Brad Davis

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:35:53 -0500

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:04:08 -0700
Brad Davis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> General: As has been pointed out, IPv4LL addresses (as defined here)
> are not link local addresses but subnet local addresses (SL?).

well, they're not routable.  you can subnet a subnet but you can't subnet a link using link-locals.

-- 
I tried enlightenment but it kept crashing.