Subject: [manet] MANET Multicast Address - All MANET Routers

From: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:44:50 -0800

For the time being I think we all agree we should have one IPv4 and one 
IPv6 multicast group of link-local scope for MANET routing protocol 
traffic.  We will call this address "All MANET Routers".

In the future we may consider additional multicast groups.

If you think we should pursue something different at this time, please 
respond.

Ian Chakeres

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:18:58 -0500

How I read the email traffic was that there was consensus that there 
should be one group pair (v4 / v6) for
each MANET routing protocol, with less consensus for a generic
"ALL-MANET-ROUTERS group.
Since this is also my recommendation, I
might be reading it selectively, but that is how it seemed to me.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:10:34 -0800

> might be reading it selectively, but that is how it seemed to me.

agree.

-gabriel

---

From: David Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:59:03 -0600

> might be reading it selectively, but that is how it seemed to me.

I agree.  Likewise biased.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
[email-masked]      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933

---

From: Christophe Jelger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:25:24 +0100

Dear all,

As I said in a previous email, I also agree that there should be a 
separate address for each MANET routing protocol.

Regarding the ALL_MANET_ROUTERS address, I'm not so much in favor of it 
since I don't really see the interest of using such an address if we 
define an address for each routing protocol.

regards
Christophe

---

From: "Pedro M. Ruiz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:36:21 +0100

I also thought this was the consensus...

--Pedro

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:31:13 -0500

The only use I could see for ALL_MANET_ROUTERS 
is if there was a need to do MANET router discovery. (I am a MANET router
with some MANET and some non-MANET interfaces, but I don't know which is which. 
I send out a query to
ALL_MANET_ROUTERS out all interfaces to see who responds. I could send
out queries to each
routing protocol, but then adding a new one breaks router discovery.)
I do  not know
how much of an issue this is, so I am neutral on ALL_MANET_ROUTERS.

If there is another use for ALL_MANET_ROUTERS it needs to be
explicated, at least to me.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Christophe Jelger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:00:09 +0100

Hi Marshall,

Actually "router discovery" as it's defined in standard networks cannot 
really be applied to MANETs. From a pragmatic point of view, classical 
router discovery in IPv6 is used to discover default gateways (for 
default route) and global prefix (for IPv6 stateless address 
autoconfiguration). I don't really know what else is used with ff02::2 ...

So these things do not apply to MANETs, that's why I don't see the point 
of having an extra ALL_MANET_ROUTERS in a MANET, since all nodes are 
also routers. Since the MANET WG cares about IP routing in MANETs, we 
should see a MANET as a graph of routers, not as a subnet of nodes 
(despite the fact that I prefer this approach).

Regards
Christophe

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:30:48 -0500

Dear Christophe;

Thanks for the update. Given this, I do not see a need for
"ALL_MANET_ROUTERS" either.

Regards
Marshall