Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

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

Hi Thomas,

>>>> My point is that L3 communication becomes dependent on a L3 routing
>>>> protocol. We didn't have this in the IP stack before.
>>>
>>> Well.....L3 communication depends on a populated routing table, thus
>>> on something populating the routing table.
>>> L3 multi-hop communications depends on something clever (a routing
>>> protocol, a DHCP server, a human, for example and depending on the
>>> place) populating routing tables.
>>>
>>> I do not see what this document does that changes that?
>>
>> Up to now, all IP addressing models I am aware of provide 1-hop L3
>> communication between nodes that have L2 connectivity.
>>
>> The proposed addressing model for MANETs breaks this. Now there
>> is a need for something clever. This clever thing could be
>> stopped.
>
>What makes the route to the 'local network' appear in the routing
>table? In that case the 'something clever' is whatever enters that
>route. Often, that 'something clever' is the same thing as what
>configures the interface....

The IP stack puts the configured prefixes on IP interfaces in the 
routing table. This provides L3 connectivity whenever there is a L2
link. 
The 'something clever' puts longer prefixes in the routing table.
This could introduce multi-hop paths for 1-hop reachable nodes, for sure
when link metrics are in place. And of course multi-hop paths to nodes
that are in the MANET, but not 1-hop reachable.

I strongly disagree with "that 'something clever' is the same thing as 
what configures the interface". Our old charter was clear the Autoconf
mechanism shall be independent of MANET protocols.


Regards, Teco.