Subject: New Issue: TTL=255 on send, check on receive?

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 21:11:18 +0700

Description of issue: Don't configure needless LL addresses
Submitter name: Robert Elz
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: 2003-02-08
Reference: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/2003-01/msg00262.html
	http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/2003-01/msg00548.html
	http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/2003-02/msg00000.html
Comment type: ['T'echnical | 'E'ditorial]  T
Priority: ['S' Must fix | '1' Should fix | '2' May fix ]  S
Section: 1.5
Rationale/Explanation of issue: See LL1
Lengthy description of problem: See LL1
Requested Change: Delete all of section 1.5, and replace it with:

Having addresses of multiple different scopes assigned to an interface
with no adequate way to determine in what circumstances each address
should be used leads to complexity for applications and confusion for
users.   A node with any address assigned for a link can communicate with
all other devices on that link, whether those other devices use link-local
addresses, or routable addresses.

For this reason, a host that obtains, or is configured with, a routable
address on an interface, SHOULD NOT attempt to configure a link-local address
on the same interface.

Where a link-local address has been configured on an interface, and a
routable address is later configured on the same interface, the host
MUST always use the routable address when initiating new communications,
and MUST cease advertising the availability of the link-local address
through whatever mechanisms that address had been made known to others.

A host SHOULD continue to use the link-local address for communications
underway when the routable address was configured, and MAY continue to
accept new communications addressed to the link-local address.