Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

Dear Teco,

Thanks for your review. See comments below.

On Jan 29, 2010, at 17:13 PM, Teco Boot wrote:

> Ryuji, Thomas,
>
> I commented on the document.
> I don't see any reflection in the document, nor received questions
> for clarification.
>
> 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 would wonder if you have a MANET if you are not running a MANET  
protocol?

That said, I am not sure I understand what the drawbacks you identify  
are. The document takes the "most conservative" approach, i.e. a  
network in which interfaces are configured in accordance to this,  
should allow any operation. The document, as I read it, uses "should",  
which does not prohibit alternatives (with the usual caveat concerning  
a "should").

I believe that if you have no "MANET protocol", but still want L3  
communication between identified interfaces (IP addresses), then you  
would want a mechanism/protocol assigning these addresses? For the  
reasons outlined in that document, those addresses should (to allow  
any operation / any protocol to operate) satisfy the suggested rules  
in the document. If you do deviate from the "should", the usual  
caveats for a "should" apply -- and it might be OK for your deployment?

Cheers,

Thomas

> Maybe this drawback is overlooked or underestimated.
>
> And the text on link locals does not describe how IPv6 works. LLs are
> used in MANETs for multiple purposes. We can't without.
>
> My other comments are textual or on incompleteness. Especially, the
> document doesn't describe anything useful for assigning globals.
>
> Regards, Teco
>
>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org]  
>> Namens
>> Ryuji Wakikawa
>> Verzonden: woensdag 27 januari 2010 9:00
>> Aan: Emmanuel Baccelli
>> CC: autoconf@ietf.org
>> Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Emmanuel updated the document according to the WG last call.
>> Please confirm the changes specially if you sent comments during  
>> WGLC.
>>
>> We will pass this document to Jari for the next stage soon.
>>
>> thanks,
>> ryuji
>>
>>
>> On 2010/01/26, at 4:09, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> here's an updated version of the ad hoc addressing model document,
>> following the comments gathered during working group last call. We  
>> took
>> as much as possible on board, as discussed on the mailing list.  
>> Please
>> review this revision, and let us know if you have further comments.
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-02.txt
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Emmanuel
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Autoconf mailing list
>>> Autoconf@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Autoconf mailing list
>> Autoconf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf