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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
