Re: new issue: [LL36] Combine and rework section 1.7 and 2.11 to be clearer

On 12/6/03 4:49 AM, "Robert Elz" <[email protected]> wrote:

> No, a workable routable address cannot possibly be a v4LL address,
> by definition, a LL address is not routable.
> 
> I suspect that you mean that you use a non-LL address in a secnario where
> you migt have been imagining a LL address would be used - that's nothing
> special, LL addresses have no magic extra properties (aside from being
> able to be created by a node on its own) - once they exist, they do absolutely
> nothing that any other address can't do equally as well (they are just
> more restricted in with what they can communicate, because they can't be
> routed).

<sigh>...yes robert I know that a LL address isn't magic. I was simply
saying that I like how Apple does things. It's convenient, it's handy, and
it makes more sense to me than either shutting the usage of Zeroconf
protocols entirely once a non v4LL address was configured, or configuring a
separate address for v4LL. The statement I was referring to was unclear as
to what it mean, and I really only wanted clarification of it.

That's all.

Really.

john

-- 
"The truth shall set you free."
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Motto