Subject: Re: [Issue 27]: LL-only hosts

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:14:47 -0800 (PST)

>> I propose that this issue be rejected.

>it appears that you're supporting the issue in principle, but have
>issues with the proposed wording.

Yes.

> "Host supporting configuration of LLv4 address MUST also support
> configuration of a routable address, whether manually or
> automatically."

>manual configuration as an alternative would be fine with me as long
>as
>
>a) the manual configuration includes netmask and default route
>   (address alone is insufficient), and

Fine.

>b) a host that does not support the standard method of determining
>   local network configuration for connected networks (presumably DHCP)
>   SHOULD require manual configuration to enable LL.
>
>but I don't want to see devices advertised as "complies with IETF LL
>standard for zero configuration" if they do require configuration
>to work correctly on connected networks.

You're probably right about this. How about this new text:

"Hosts supporting configuration of LLv4 addresses MUST also support
configuration of a routable address, netmask and default route, whether
manually or automatically. Hosts not supporting automated configuration
(such as via DHCPv4) SHOULD require manual configuration to enable LLv4."

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:29:50 -0500

> configuration of a routable address, netmask and default route,
> whether manually or automatically. Hosts not supporting automated
> configuration(such as via DHCPv4) SHOULD require manual configuration
> to enable LLv4."

I like it.

Keith

---

From: Markku Savela <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:32:04 +0200

> (such as via DHCPv4) SHOULD require manual configuration to enable LLv4."

Isn't this against the zeroconf goal: "without any configuration, plug
in the node and it should work"?

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:41:01 -0800 (PST)

> in the node and it should work"?

The problem is that if a host doesn't support automatic configuration,
then it also can't take direction as to when LLv4 should be enabled (such
as preferring a routable address when available). So it could be argued
that such a host is already "not working".

I can conceive of a device that boots with only LLv4 support, and then can
be configured to support routable addressing, but I'd suggest that it is
probably more viable for that device to support routable addressing (e.g.
DHCPv4) by default. If it does that, then it can also support LLv4 by
default, and everything will indeed "just work".

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:09:10 -0500

> > configuration(such as via DHCPv4) SHOULD require manual
> > configuration to enable LLv4."
> 

if you want to realize that goal, you need to implement DHCP.

LL does not "work" (for any reasonable meaning of "work") on a connected
network.  what LL allows a host to do is "work" on a disconnected
network without manual configuration, about as well as the host could
"work" with manual configuration.