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

[Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>]

I don’t think the IESG will mind an IPv6 only document. They might mind an IPv4 only document.
(Unless things have changed since I last interacted with them.)

> On 2 Aug 2024, at 20:54, David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 2:04 PM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Hi Kyle,
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Kyle Rose <krose=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2024 11:45 AM
>> > To: Bob Hinden <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> > Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; IPv6 List <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
> =============================================== 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>