Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

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

Hello Teco,

On 2/5/2010 12:09 AM, Teco Boot wrote:


> I thought we should work on a practical addressing model.
> In practice, it is useful to have IP access to nearby nodes,
> also when the MANET protocol is non-operational.

Well, as far as I can tell, we have
been doing just that, and in practice
a node can have access to neighbors when
the protocol isn't operational.


> I don't want "no MANET protocol".
> I want L3 connectivity when there is a L2 link, and the MANET protocol
> is non-operational.

Your wish is granted...


>>            For the
>> reasons outlined in that document, those addresses should (to allow
>> any operation / any protocol to operate) satisfy the suggested rules
>> in the document. If you do deviate from the "should", the usual
>> caveats for a "should" apply -- and it might be OK for your deployment?
>
> Yes, we all are free to ignore the document.
> But there were strong opinions that the defined addressing models shall
> work in all scenarios?

Surely, the defined models _do_ work in all scenarios.

Perhaps in some scenarios additional assumptions can be
made for more scalable address aggregation to be
maintained.  Or, were you thinking of something else?

> The addressing model I use works great for all proactive MANET protocols
> I am aware of.

So does the model in the document under discussion.

> For the reactive routing protocols, there are some implementation issues:
> The RREQ should be triggered after "address not reachable", i.e. interaction
> with ARP/ND.

I'm wondering about RREQ for link-local addresses.
That seems almost like a contradiction in terms.
I'd prefer to have routes composed of links, not
the other way around.

Regards,
Charlie P.