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

Hi Philip,

Yes, this works. But what I am trying to address is that, due to the 
wording of section 1.7, the mDNS printer will no longer broadcast the 
LL address once it obtains a routable address and thus the LL only 
device will never know that the printer exists and thus cannot 
communicate with it.

That is why the phrase

    "the host MUST always use the routable address when
    initiating new communications, and MUST cease advertising the
    availability of the Link-Local IPv4 address through whatever
    mechanisms that address had been made known to others"

is not acceptable since it precludes LL only devices from participating 
in the network.

Alex Karahalios

On Dec 18, 2003, at 2:49 AM, Philip Nye wrote:

> Provided they are on the same link, the LL device _can_ communicate 
> with the printer just so long as the printer has the necessary route 
> for the 169.254.x.x network. This has been the preferred mode of 
> operation for several successive drafts now. Communication between LL 
> and routable hosts on the same link is perfectly possible.
>
> I would expect a printer using mDNS to configure the necessary route 
> automatically. Getting the IPv4LL draft to RFC status would make this 
> even more likely!
>