Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents

Shubhranshu wrote:
> Alex,
> 
> Please see inline comments
> 
> On 3/19/08, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Shubhranshu wrote:
>>> Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Ian Chakeres wrote:
>>>>> I'd like to chime in on this conversation by saying that "MANET
>>>>> link" is not a good term. MANET's (and the MANET WG protocols)
>>>>> run over lots of kinds of different physical and logical links.
>>>>> It just so happens that they may also often run over links with
>>>>> asymmetric reachability.
>>>> Maybe then trying to describe link-types in the AUTOCONF
>>>> Architecture is actually listing those kinds of different physical
>>>> and logical links on which MANET have been run?
>>>>
>>>> I have not run MANET.  But I ran other IPv6 protocols, and AUTOCONF
>>>> is not limited to MANET, and the list of link-types I used are the
>>>> following:
>>>>
>>>> Ethernet Bluetooth PPP RS232C USB
>>> I agree that defining term "MANET link" is not appropriate but I do
>>> not see any point in listing all the links on which MANET has been
>>> run.
>> How would one otherwise start describing link types?
> 
> I assumed in my previous mail that by link you meant different L2
> technologies since you listed bluetooth, USB, Ethernet, etc. One could
> do that by describing its properties, behavior as seen by the IP.

YEs, that is what I mean by 'link': a certain L2 technology.  I agree 
one would describe its properties and behavior as  seen by IP.

>>> MANET has not been run on any particular L2 technology does not imply
>>> that MANET cannot run on that technology.
>>>
>>> I agree that having "IP Link Model" for MANET explained clearly would
>>>  help here. The challenge is to express precisely, with appropriate
>>> terminologies what the MANET community has been assuming while
>>> designing and running MANET protocols. The current MANET Architecture
>>>  document have text on this but since these questions keep coming, I
>>> am inclined to think that including more specific text would help.
>> Well, the current draft does not describe 'link type', neither 'IP Link
>> Model', can't find.  What do you mean by current MANET Architecture
>> document having text on this?  Which part, thank you.
> 
> I meant section 5.

But section 5 "Addressing & the MANET Prefix Model" does not describe 
link types.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf