Re: [Autoconf] Multicast confusion between MANET Arch and AUTOCONFProblem Statement

I agree with Ronald. If there was already an easy definition of what is 
a "MANET link" then the architecture document would not be needed, would it?
Emmanuel

Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't a écrit :
> Hi Alex, 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: dinsdag 20 november 2007 16:20
>> To: autoconf@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Autoconf] Multicast confusion between MANET Arch 
>> and AUTOCONFProblem Statement
>>
>> I think there may be a confusion with respect to the 
>> interpretation of multicast in 
>> draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt vs 
>> draft-ietf-autoconf-statement-02.txt.
>>
>> It seems as if the manetarch accepts that link-layers have a 
>> well defined multicast behaviour whereas the problem 
>> statement doesn't.
>>
>> autoconf-statement:
>>> Traditional solutions assume that a broadcast directly 
>> reaches every 
>>> router or host on the subnetwork, whereas this generally is not the 
>>> case in MANETs (see [2]).
>> So a broadcasted message (a special case of multicast) will 
>> not reach every host on the MANET subnet.
> 
> "link" versus "subnetwork" are distinct notions, aren't they? What is
> left of a "subnetwork" in an environment where \128 (\32 for IPv4)
> prefixes are configured on MANET interfaces? If your local interface is
> the only one in the subnet, then all interfaces in the subnet are
> trivially reachable :-) "Link" is something else...
> 
>> [2] autoconf-manetarch:
>>> Link-local Multicast/Broadcast Scope On a MANET interface, a packet 
>>> sent to a link-local multicast or all-ones broadcast 
>> address reaches 
>>> the MANET interfaces of neighboring MANET routers...
>> So it actually does.
>>
> 
> No, not all interfaces of all MANET routers. Just those of the
> *neighbo(u)ring* MANET routers. See MANET architecture for a definition
> of neighbo(u)r.
>  
>> I personally think that the autoconf-manetarch definition is 
>> more inline with how I see relationships between link-layer 
>> multicast and IP multicast.
>>
>> Or maybe we could define 'subnet' to be a set of hosts and 
>> routers linked together by the same link-layer technology 
>> where a multicast behaviour is well defined.  Or similar?
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Alex
> 
> Just my 2 cents,
> Ronald
> 
> 
> This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf