[manet] Re: [IPv6]Re: IPv6 Address for Ad Hoc Networks

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 2:04 PM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Kyle,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kyle Rose <krose=[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2024 11:45 AM
> > To: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>; IPv6 List <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [IPv6]Re: IPv6 Address for Ad Hoc Networks
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 2:35 PM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > IMHO, this draft should not specify any specific prefixes.   It should
> all be “To be assigned”.   Including it now is a distraction to the more
> > important question.
> > >
> > > I think the question that needs to be answered is:  Is there a real
> need for Ad Hoc IPv6 addresses?   Focusing now on the details or which
> > or how many prefixes it might use doesn’t address that.
> >
> > It sounds like the main example use case is a mobile ad-hoc network,
> > e.g., of vehicles traveling on a highway at different speeds and with
> > no ability to pre-define a mesh or to pre-determine routes within that
> > network to connected resources.
> >
> > Has anyone proposed concretely building such a thing with a particular
> > application in mind?
>
> MANETs are an easy-to-understand special case that clearly highlight why
> Multilink Local
> Addresses (MLAs) are necessary, but the MLA case also applies to any
> variety of IPv6
> local area network that may not be particularly mobile. Imagine giving a
> networking
> novice a box of arbitrary networking gear (routers, switches, cables, etc)
> and then ask
> them to just blindly start plugging cables into ports randomly. The
> network should be
> able to come up and have all connected nodes self-assign MLAs and be able
> to ping6
> any other node in the arbitrary topology using multihop routes if
> necessary. And
> all of this without any infrastructure connections to the Internet.
>
> > I'm trying to figure out whether this is WG or RG territory.
>
> This is proposed as an update of RFC5889. When RFC5889 was published, it
> was
> decided to work this in the Intarea because the principles apply more
> broadly to
> any kind of Ad Hoc network and not just those that are mobile. The current
> document updates RFC5889, but it is IPv6 only hence 6man looks like the
> appropriate working group.
>

Obviously, this applies to networks with node mobility. It also applies to
any multi-link network where the topology changes quickly, from minutes to
hours, regardless of node mobility. This concept is applicable even to
stationary multi-link networks where nodes may be intermittently connected
due to varying environmental conditions or unstable node behavior.
Traditional link-local addresses would not function effectively in such a
network. The assumptions regarding traditional link-local addresses assume
a relatively stable link environment; while it allows for partitioning,
this occurrence is expected to be rare. It is considered an exception that
needs to be addressed rather than a routine incident expected regularly.

Thanks

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================