Re: [Autoconf] comments on draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt

Thomas Narten wrote:
[...]
>>> You really (I think) need to define an abstraction that defines
>>> an link type of "manet" that handles all the "interesting" 
>>> characteristics of MANETs (like non-transitive connectivity) but
>>> that also presents itself to IP as a single IP subnet that has
>>> the normal properties.
> 
>> I think there are two MANET implementation models.
> 
>> One is hiding MANET form IP, e.g. a sub-IP MANET model. This is
>> more or less out-of-scope for IETF.
> 
> This could be done in the IETF, and maybe this is  a direction the WG
>  may want to pursue. But is this even a model the WG is currently 
> considering?

As a member of this WG I can say that I currently consider a model where
the MANET protocol is run at sub-IP and offers a IP-friendly MAC
already.   I mean the sub-IP may run MANET, or may not.  I'm interested
in the interface that sub-IP provides to my stack, and needing that
interface to be a Ethernet MAC.

I would also like to learn from other WG members.

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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf