Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

> -----Original Message-----
> From: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Teco Boot
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 10:05 AM
> To: 'Charles E. Perkins'
> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org; 'Thomas Heide Clausen'
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document
> 
> Hi Charlie,
> 
> >> I am quite uncomfortable with a large drawback of the proposed
> >> addressing model, which makes it unacceptable for the deployed MANETs
> >> I am involved in.
> >> 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?
> 
> 
> >> 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.
> One can think of updating the IPv6 RFCs. I'll stay on current
> practice.

I believe OSPFv3 for one is going to need link-locals
when it is used as a MANET routing protocol. (That is
not to say that OSPFv3 can only carry IPv6 routes; it
can also use Address Family extensions to carry IPv4
routes.)

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> Regards, Teco
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf