Joe Touch > 802.11 has a problem when *L2* reachability signals don't translate to > L3 reachability. RFC6130 gets around that by using control messages that > are sent inside L3.
Actually that's not the whole story for IEEE 802.11. > Unless you have some sort of filter in place, if HELLO in IP gets there > then IP gets there. Nor is that. If you care (but this is an aside from the point here) I'd Google about the 802.11 "grey zone" problem. But in the general case, ignore that. > Some routing protocols assume bidirectional communication, i.e., if you > can send an IP datagram to me then I can send one to you. But that's > only a subset of routing protocols; routing protocols that support > unidirectional links have also been around for a long time. In a MANET, they are definitely not the easiest things to do with any degree of reliability. Joe Touch >> You find them using local broadcast. > The PILC doc explains why this is a bad idea unless L2 is known to > support broadcast. The L2 you're describing fails that assumption. Which L2 I'm describing? I haven't described an L2. (I made an aside about 802.11, which actually does support local broadcast, so you can't mean that.) > The RFC implies that control reachability implies IP reachability. No, it really doesn't for routing purposes (e.g. RFC 7181 - RFC 6130 is not itself a routing protocol). Because A can locally broadcast and it reaches B, who A may not even know exists, does not make a unicast link A to B useful. > It does not imply that unidirectional reachability implies bidirectional > reachability. When B receives a HELLO from A, then B knows it can get IP > datagrams from A (that's a leap that the doc makes because it HELLOs are > sent inside IP datagrams). It knows it can get locally broadcast IP datagrams from A. Not sufficient. > It might help us understand what you want to do if you just say it: You realise I'm not an author of the current document? I'm just pointing out you're missing things when you're attempting to say "nothing new here, all completely understood". We have experience that's not so. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
