Re: [dhcwg] WG consensus action: ACCEPT LL34 better transition to routable from v4LL using DHCP

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 21:24, Robert Elz wrote:
>    
>   | Are you saying it is ok to run the DHCP and v4LL state machines
>   | independently of each other? I just want to be absolutely clear on this.
> 
> The state machines run independently, when they're run - but you don't
> generate a LL address if you get an address from elsewhere.   DHCP simply
> does its thing, as it does now, no changes needed.   LL looks to see if an 
> address has been obtained (or even manually configured), and if not, it
> runs its state machine to acquire one.

That's not exactly independent.

In any case, in an ad-hoc scenario I need a working address within
approx. 10 seconds after the user activates an application and the RF is
powered up. Not much time to dance around, there. I figure the only way
to meet the usability requirements is to run the state machines in
parallel and deprecate the v4LL address later if DHCP happens to
succeed. Time syncing the state machines is kind of hard, as the DHCP
client is in user space and the v4LL protocol is in kernel space. If
synching the state machines is a requirement, I'm afraid the DHCP client
will have to do it.

	MikaL