In message <20050422234711.GI12650@netbsd.org>Bill Studenmund writes

>On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 03:18:56PM -0700, Jonathan Stone wrote:
>>=20
>> I have no clue what the motivation is here.  But I have a good working
>> knowledge of IPv4, and with that knowledge (but no idea what you are
>> trying to achieve), this entire proposal looks wrong, unacceptably
>> wrong -- to the point where I would back out such a patch, with
>> preduice, as being clearly wrong.
>>=20
>> In particular, trying to force IPv6-style "link local" semantics on to
>> RFC-1918 or zeroconf addresses *is* incorrect, and will break valid
>> uses of IPv4.
>
>How so?

1. Retroactively trying to force IPv6 semantics onto IPv4 is a
prima-facie error.  Period.  End of story. In my own opinion, anyone
commiting that error is just not qualified to hold an informed
technicaln opinion on this matter. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's
how it is.

2. The proposal is a half-arsed version of Strong ES that will break
``real'' Strong ES.  I use Strong ES, I am working on better support
for it, so I object to breaking it.  (See my earlier message (but
after the one you respond to) for some discussion of Strong ES.)


3. It's a grody special-case hack. Special-purpose hacks aren't what
we do: ``no code before its time''. In fairness, this is not entirely
independent from #1. If you wish you could float the idea in a
suitably-qualified audience, say e2e, e2e and see what it gets you.
But please, please, don't mention my name.