Subject: My positions on LL1, LL2, LL23 and LL27

From: Mika Liljeberg <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Feb 2003 21:26:17 +0200

LL1 and LL23 - REJECT

I reject the issue cited by LL1/LL23. I stated my initial position in
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/2003-02/msg00425.html
and recent discussion has only served to reaffirm my opinion. I feel
that adopting LL23 should be left as an implementation decision. The
approach of having both LL+routable address on a node is not
incompatible with the approach of switching between the two. Nodes
following these two approaches can coexist in a network. The choice of
implementation approach should be left to the OS vendor.

Heated arguments have been tossed back and forth, however real proof of
the technical merits of these proposals has been in very short supply.
Some real problems in the mechanism of switching between LL and
configured addresses, however, have been pointed out. This is clearly a
case were more real deployment exprience is needed. Since rejecting LL23
does not preclude an implementation, it is not necessary to modify the
specification.

I also detest the dependency this would create between v4LL and the DHCP
specification.

LL2 - REJECT

I reject the change as stated. It is not feasible to use DHCP as a
policy re-enforcement mechanism and it is not for this WG to try. See
also:

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/2003-02/msg00415.html

I will agree, however, to a manual configuration mechanism to disable
LL.

LL27 - REJECT

I compared this proposal to the charter and found *nothing* in common.
Ruling isolated systems out of IETF scope is simply stupid. Supporting
link-layer independent reusable mechanisms is always the right thing to.
I've seen enough non-standard stove pipe solutions to last me a
lifetime.

Regards,

	MikaL

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:20:33 -0700

I concur with Mika on all of these items - they should all be rejected.