Re: [Autoconf] Conclusion: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-02.txt

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

Hello Alex,

On 2/16/2010 12:20 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Le 16/02/2010 21:01, Jari Arkko a écrit :
>> Great. Lets move this doc forward!
>
> YEs, let's move this forward and add multicast discussion to it without
> which autoconf can't fly.

What if we find that the requirements for a
mobile ad hoc network do not enable us to
rely on a typical autoconfiguration  protocol?


>  Multicast is what typical autoconfiguration
> protocols use today without which they'd never work.

This isn't true.  In every case I am aware of, we could
have designed for pure broadcast operation.

But of course you might just say that broadcast is a
special case of multicast.  In that case, your
argument completely loses its apparent force anyway.


> Multicast is what IPv6 got builtin precisely for the reason of autoconfing.

Nothing wrong with using the tools available to
perform the function for which they were built
in the systems where they can be expected to work.

> This draft being silent about multicast spells it's not autoconf, IMHO.

Well, I strongly disagree, especially since your
arguments as I understand them are fatally flawed.

However, I'd be happy to have a non-tree-based
local multicast group consisting of all members
within range of a node.  There's absolutely zero
multicast protocol required to maintain membership
in this group, conveniently.

I would not insist to have that group definition
appear in the addr-model draft.


Regards,
Charlie P.