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

Ryuji,

What document are you referring to?
I cannot read in autoconf-adhoc-addr-model what you are saying.

Regards, Teco

Op 24 mrt 2010, om 20:57 heeft Ryuji Wakikawa het volgende geschreven:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf