Subject: link-local-0.2 txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:47:45 +0200

I am rather pleased with the draft. Many of the issues of the former draft have been clarified.
I have some small editorial comments

Would it be a good idea to give a definition of on-link and off-link thus showing
that hosts connected to different physical segments connected by bridges are all on-link.

________________________________________________________
The last paragraph of 2.4
In the case where two hosts on the same link .... it is preferable to use the configured address...
Those (configured) addresses are assumed to be more stable.

I doubt the general applicability of the motivation. In a "stable" home network connections via a Residential
Gateway can prove to be rather volatile with a duration of a few minutes to dowload some document or
music. For the download of another document, a new connection can be opened with an allocation
of a different IP address by the IP service provider.

I suggest to delete the paragraph or to advice selection of the most stable address dependent
on the configuration conditions.
___________________________________________________________---

2.5 first phrase
  ...... addresses ARE in the ....
_____________________________________________________________
2.5   5th paragraph

Many people may mind the term: extremely simple device. A set-top box is actually
not simple. I suggest to remove extremely simple and replace it with cost efficient if
an adjective is needed at all.

I suggest:
The non-forwarding rule is important because it is expected that many link-local-only devices
, that currently use X10 [X10], USB [USB] or FireWire [IEEE 1394], have a communication scope that is limited to a
room, appartment or house.

_______________________________________________________________________________
2.5  last paragraph

Tunnelling for off-link access.
I suggest removing this paragraph for the same reasons as cited by earlier comments by (Aboba?)

_____________________________________________________________________

Is it possible to make a list of items that have to be addressed by a physical medium standard
that will be confronted with the link-local addresssing. The document already discusses
several flavours of ethernet, but there are also flavours of for example USB and IEEE 1394

Items such as:
- ARP sending frequency,
- Number of ARP packets
- physical (dis)connection behavior; especially as many IHDN standards specify this in great detail

___________________________________________________________________________________

Peter van der Stok                Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven
Bldg: WL P 311                      Prof. Holstlaan 4
Phone: +31 40 2742649       5656 AA Eindhoven
Fax:       +31 40 274                The Netherlands
Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com