Subject: RE: IPv4 link-local (was unrelated subject line)

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:20:58 -0800

>I very much doubt that. We already have IPv6 link local, which
>provides you with a solid "on link" solution, without having to
>rely on short random numbers and error-prone collision detection.
>The classic argument against relying on IPv6 is that the
>infrastructure is not ready; but in the case of link-local, there
>is no infrastructure. So, if you want new features, you can just
>use IPv6.

Your classic argument is not the only argument.

The other factor which affects all this is that we are trying to convince 
makers of all sorts of USB devices to make Ethernet devices instead. The 
$49 ink-jet printer is the common example, but not the only example. I'm 
sure many people on this list would like to be able to buy a networked 
printer for $49 instead of the $300-$500 it costs today.

We are having a lot of success, but with these vendors trying to convince 
them of the benefit of IP at all is sometimes a battle; convincing them 
to adopt the unfamiliar (to them) IPv6 is that much harder battle.

Consequently, while Macs and Wintel PCs have IPv6 already, a lot of the 
devices we want to connect to do not have IPv6 today, and probably will 
not have IPv6 for a year or two.

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * Chairman, IETF Zeroconf
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:48:56 -0500

> to adopt the unfamiliar (to them) IPv6 is that much harder battle.

well, if you're trying to convince those vendors that it's acceptable
to implement Ethernet/IP/LL instead of USB and that they don't have
to deal with security when they do so, I wish you'd stop.    similarly,
if you're trying to get them to adopt a version of IP that is fast
becoming obsolete, I wish you'd stop that too.

Keith