Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

["Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Teco,

On 1/29/2010 10:04 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
>
>>> My requirement is that L3 communication between nodes, that have L2
>>> connectivity, must be possible in all conditions, including conditions
>>> with a non-operational MANET protocol.
>>>
>>>        
>> I don't see that the addressing model prevents any such L3
>> communication.
>>      
> How are packets forwarded?
> The destination address (which is direct L2 neighbor in this case)
> needs to be found in a forwarding table, normally the routing table.
> Neighbor cache could be used also.
> How to get this info in such a table?
>    

Node A broadcasts a "Hello" message.
Node B hears it, and puts node A in its forwarding table.

The nodes may take subsequent actions to verify
bidirectionality, exchange other table entries, etc.

>    
>>> And the text on link locals does not describe how IPv6 works. LLs are
>>> used in MANETs for multiple purposes. We can't without.
>>>
>>>        
>> This isn't true.  You can build MANETs without using link-local at all
>> in any fashion.
>>
>> I'm not saying you have to ignore link-local.
>>      
> If LLs are configured, they are used for L2 address resolving.
> Also for MANET protocols, if destination address is LL mcast.
>    

O.K.

> One can think of updating the IPv6 RFCs. I'll stay on current
> practice.
>    

Me, too.

Current practice includes running AODV and OLSR and DYMO.

One should think of updating the IPv6 RFCs, since the link-local
constructions contained therein were written _explicitly_ in
disregard of the needs for wireless links of the sort familiar to
practitioners in this group.

I was there.  I remember very well the meeting in Boston
where this happened.

Regards,
Charlie P.