> 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.
I agree entirely that it's not desirable to expect ad hoc networks to be a single link. However, the proposals for ad hoc networks I've seen tend to use ambiguous, and often link-local, addressing. The zeroconf group attempted to justify v4LL addressing by saying it was for ad hoc networks; now we see people trying to justify application use of v6LL in ad hoc networks. Both are highly dysfunctional (v6LL is not quite as bad as v4LL, but still not generally usable). > >There's nothing wrong with using the packet format on an ad hoc > >network, the problem is it's the expectation that apps have that IP > >equates to Internet access. > > > I thought apps were supposed to care about end-to-end data exchange, > regardless of whether the data is exchanged over one or many links. Apps care about more things than end-to-end data integrity. Some apps care about having consistent view of addressing across all locations in the network. Some apps also care about having consistent naming across all locations in the network. IMHO IP-based ad hoc networks need to provide both of these in order to be viable. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
