Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

["Teco Boot" <[e-mail]>]

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.


Regards, Teco