Hi Joe, PILC is a great ref that should be cited indeed. Another relevant ref is RFC 5889. One of the recommendations that RFC boils down to: *do not* use on-link prefixes *at all* on interfaces to multi-hop wireless networks -- the subject of the draft we discuss now.
The reason is: there is no planned structure at link-layer and you cannot guarantee anything in terms of connectivity over such wireless interfaces -- which does not however mean that these interfaces are useless! In short: this is not yet another simple case of NBMA. Ergo the need for this draft. Best, Emmanuel On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI, there's an RFC explaining all this already: 3819 > > Joe > > On 1/16/2015 12:04 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > +1 > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian E > Carpenter > >> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:16 AM > >> To: Alexandru Petrescu; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] About > draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-04 > >> > >> Alex, > >> > >>> but to improve the layers below IP such as to have IP run unmodified. > >> > >> In the general case that is impossible, because the SDO that develops > >> the lower layer isn't interested. If the lower layer is intrinsically > >> NBMA then for sure ARP or ND+DAD will not work as designed. If the lower > >> layer doesn't support a physical MTU of at least 1280 IPv6 will not work > >> as designed. So in the general case both an adaptation layer and an > >> NBMA solution are required. And as you know, there are other "Ethernet" > >> assumptions that don't apply in a low-power wireless scenario. > >> > >> Of course the goal is "IP over Everything" but that isn't the same as > >> "Everything must be like Ethernet", which you seem to imply. > >> > >> In fact when you read draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication > >> (and imagine what its security section will say when it's been > >> written), I think the conclusion is that a great many things have > >> to change, not in the IP packet format, but in the ecosystem > >> currently provided by ARP/DHCP or RA/ND/DAD/SLAAC/DHCPv6. > >> > >> Brian > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Int-area mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
