folks,

I am not going to stay in what is ad-hoc network.  This is not well
defined it means different things to different users and different
vendors.  But I leave this discussion with my base view.

- Can be more than one link

- Network did not exist previously or was not known to other networks

- Routing may converge (manet) or be commanded by higher authority
(don't need manet or anything like it in the second case)

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:51 PM
> To: Charlie Perkins
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Some IPv6LL operational experience
> 
> 
> > 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to