Hello Keith,
Something is wrong with the way you seem to be using the term "ad hoc" network. It doesn't have to be a single link. There are lots of reasons to have a multihop/multi-technology ad hoc network.
Thus when I see:
Keith Moore wrote:
I wonder just what you might mean. IP is very good for forwarding packets in aI'm all for enabling ad hoc networks, and I'm all for enabling link-specific applications. But trying to overload IP to do these is doing real harm.
multihop network.
There's nothing wrong with using the packet format on an ad hoc network, theI thought apps were supposed to care about end-to-end data exchange, regardless
problem is it's the expectation that apps have that IP equates to Internet
access.
of whether the data is exchanged over one or many links.
That's news to many people in the [manet] group! Why not??An ad hoc network is a different beast than the Internet and you can't expect apps in general to transparently work on both kinds of network.
I also can't understand this.At the very least you need an API to allow apps to declare whether they work on one kind or both. And the default needs to be the Internet.
Regards, Charlie P.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
