Re: WG ACTION: ACCEPT [LL38] Remove vestigial link-local only device text

Removal of the vestigial text is welcome. Please consider removing 
the second paragraph also because it seems to imply that a host could 
"implement both Link-Local and conventional routable IPv4 addresses",
although we have a rough consensus that a host with a "conventional"
address should not use a Link-Local address.

That a host could implement these different addressing modes only
under different circumstances, which you presumably meant, is just
a little too subtle an interpretation for a reader who has not
been through the protracted discussion.

John

At 02:50 PM 1/5/2004, Erik Guttman wrote:
>Change Section 2.8 from
>...
>To:
>
>2.8.  Link-Local Packets are Local
>
>   The non-forwarding rule means that hosts may assume that all
>   169.254/16 destination addresses are "on-link" and directly
>   reachable.  The 169.254/16 address prefix MUST NOT be subnetted.
>   This specification utilizes ARP-based address collision detection,
>   which functions by broadcasting on the local subnet. Since such
>   broadcasts are not forwarded, were subnetting to be allowed then
>   address conflicts could remain undetected.
>
>   This does not mean that Link-Local devices are forbidden from any
>   communication outside the local link.  IP hosts that implement both
>   Link-Local and conventional routable IPv4 addresses may still use
>   their routable addresses without restriction as they do today.
>
>Please see: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/msg00003.html
>And: http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/ll38.html