RE: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Ole:

Yes, that's a starting point. I have an answer  on the works but it urned out taking more time than I thought. Will post soon now.

Bottom line is a big ask to 6MAN. Please forget about FR and ATM, and do not use that as a pre-conceived system for wireless. Numbers are different. Links come and go all the time even in fixed deployments. Which can be damn large. Even today. 

Also, if people wish to discuss whether P2P subnets was good enough for FR or whether the NBMA and P2MP models you could find there (e.g. Proteon and IBM) are useful, please use another thread. I may discuss there for the sake of fun and old days - I was on the IBM side at the time. But that thinking is not applicable to wireless and IOT, clean slate.

All the best,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Troan <[e-mail]>
> Sent: lundi 29 avril 2019 10:57
> To: Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>
> Cc: 6man WG <[e-mail]>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards
> 
> >> I started an informational draft for 6MAN on WiND (wireless ND) to
> >> explain what physical models it serves and how it can be used over
> >> several MAC layer abstractions.
> >
> > I read draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-00. I quite like the
> > description of the issues with wireless media.
> >
> > There is however one thing I miss: The abstract says "This document
> > describes how the original IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and Wireless ND
> > (WiND) can be applied on various abstractions of wireless media."
> >
> > I'm also interested in *why* WiND should be applied. In particular,
> > Figure 2 shows a complex multi-layered setup.
> >
> > So my question is, why not use routing and keep subnets restricted to
> > one link?
> >
> > I hope there is a clear set of arguments why routing is not sufficient.
> > Right now it reads too much like a primitive routing protocol on top of ND.
> >
> > Another issue that often shows up with registration based systems
> > (such as quite common with IPv4 and wireless) is what happens if a
> > host has more addresses than supported by the registration system?
> >
> > I.e., it might scale better to have lots of point-to-point links and
> > prefix delegation than to have a single big subnet and a hierarchical
> > registration system.
> 
> That was my thinking too. If you have a set of p2p links, you don't need very
> little of ND.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole