ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2010-03-24 17:08:47
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf