Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

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

Charlie,

>>>> 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?
>>
>
>Node A broadcasts a "Hello" message.
>Node B hears it, and puts node A in its forwarding table.
>
>The nodes may take subsequent actions to verify
>bidirectionality, exchange other table entries, etc.

My point is that L3 communication becomes dependent on a L3 routing
protocol. We didn't have this in the IP stack before.


>>>> 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.
>>
>
>O.K.
>
>> One can think of updating the IPv6 RFCs. I'll stay on current
>> practice.
>>
>
>Me, too.
>
>Current practice includes running AODV and OLSR and DYMO.

These protocols use link-locals, when RFC5498 and RFC3484 are 
implemented.


>One should think of updating the IPv6 RFCs, since the link-local
>constructions contained therein were written _explicitly_ in
>disregard of the needs for wireless links of the sort familiar to
>practitioners in this group.

I use link-locals on wireless links, and it works great.
What is your point?


Regards, Teco.