Markus, I still don't understand the intent of the "ad hoc" interface type.
If the ad-hoc interface is designed for non-transitive links, then the draft should say so (in which case I'll be glad to provide you with suitable prose). However, in this case it should also identify the bits of DNCP which are not applicable to non-transitive interfaces (Section 6.1.5, obviously, but I don't understand DNCP well enough to say if there are others).
Section 4 speaks of "ad-hoc mode" -- does that mean 802.11 IBSS? If it is, then you should use the proper terminology, but I think that support for non-transitive links should not be restricted to 802.11 (even if the implementation is limited to it).
And sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I would like the ability to set up a router-router link with less than a full /64 allocated to it, at least in the ad-hoc case.
-- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
