As I understand it, your draft is trying to establish the notion of a multi-hop link but that is not architecturally correct – I think that was the point of the PILC comment.
Instead of a multi-hop “link”, what you have is a multi-hop “subnetwork” with link segments joined together by subnetwork routing protocols. To establish a link in the normal sense, configure an NBMA tunnel virtual overlay over the subnetwork. IPv6 ND and DHCPv6 then work as-expected. Thanks – Fred [email protected] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Emmanuel Baccelli Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 12:36 PM To: Joe Touch Cc: Templin, Fred L; Brian E Carpenter; Alexandru Petrescu; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Int-area] About draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-04 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>] On >> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter >> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:16 AM >> To: Alexandru Petrescu; [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
