Subject: Re: LL70

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 16:19:19 -0700 (PDT)

I do not believe that [DNAv4] should be a normative reference.

However, the text in question does seem to mandate the DNAv4 reachability
test:

"   For these
   reasons, a host SHOULD NOT have both a valid routable address and an
   IPv4 Link-Local address configured on the same interface.

   A "valid routable address" is a routable address that passes the
   reachability test described in section 2 of "Detection of Network
   Attachment (DNA) in IPv4" [DNAv4]."

In this text, it does not seem to me to make any difference whether the
routable address has passed a reachability test or not.  For example,
would it be ok for the host to have a routable address and an IPv4
Link-Local address configured on the same interface if the routable
address did *not* pass the reachability test?

Since that doesn't make sense either, the use of the term "valid" (and
it's definition, which by the way is not the same as in [DNAv4]) is not
required.

Suggest this be changed to:

"For these reasons, a host SHOULD NOT have both a routable address and an
IPv4 Link-Local address configured on the same interface."

Keep the [DNAv4] reference informative.