(This is a re-send to the Autoconf list - sorry about that, but it keeps the disussion together.)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins > Well, I am not really able to speak for the wide diversity of people who are > interesting in making the proposed working group, but I was characterizing > that group of people as "we". So let's call them "twdopwaiimtpwg". As one of twdopwaiimtpwg, I think this has made the key points (a) There is prior art - lots of it - for the whole MANET multi-hop subnet approach (RFC 2501 dates from 1999). (b) Whilst I would agree that creating a new successor to RFC 2501 would be worthwhile, it's not a "stop everything until you have" issue. One additional point I'd note, is that MANETs attached to the Internet are almost exclusively viewed as stub networks (for reasons of bandwidth and reliability at the least). This mostly isolates any unusual features of MANETs from the Internet even if they were an issue (which they don't appear to be). The most obvious problem that a MANET could cause to the wider Internet is use of non-aggregated addresses, putting undue strain on routing tables. But this is a driving force of the Autoconf work, which if adopted will remove this possibility. ******************************************************************** 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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
