Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC

Hi Erik,

Thanks for comments.

You had two chances to make comments, i.e. during WGLC and IETF LC.
It's way too late to send such comments. The document is now in RFC ed. queue.

The link-local address is not banished from manet routers. You can configure it and use it for router id. 
BUT, the document 'suggest' not to use the link-local address for routing protocols and data packet forwarding.

regards,
ryuji

On 2010/03/24, at 8:47, Erik Nordmark wrote:

> On 02/19/10 05:42 AM, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from the Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration
>> WG (autoconf) to consider the following document:
>> 
>> - 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks '
>>    <draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-02.txt>  as an Informational RFC
> 
> I read this draft a few weeks back during the last call. But I didn't send the comments because I wasn't up to speed with the WG discussion, and I figured I could do that while talking to folks in Anaheim. But then the draft was approved.
> 
> I have two significant issues with the document.
> 
> First of all it seems to conflate the notion of a router ID with the IP addresses configured on the interfaces on a router.
> Second of all it seems to discourage the use of IPv6 link-locals as the IP addresses to configure on interfaces on routers.
> 
> But this seems to be counter to the current set of existing well-known Internet routing protocols.
> 
> For instance, RIPng doesn't even use a notion of router IDs, and is required to communicate using IPv6 link-local addresses.
> 
> OSPv3 running on IPv6 also is required to use IPv6 link-local addresses for the exchanges AFAIK, but the router ID is a 32 bit number.
> 
> ISIS has a router ID that is a NSAP address (derived from an IEEE MAC address), and doesn't require IP addresses to be configured on the interfaces in order to run the protocol between the routers.
> 
> Hence router IDs doesn't need to be an IP address, and there is no need to stay away from IPv6 link-local addresses for the above protocols. Yet this draft has come to the conclusion that things need to be different for links with undetermined connectivity, which makes no sense.
> 
> Regards,
>   Erik
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf