Subject: [Autoconf] why were are defining a link model...

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:35:22 -0500

Just a quick reminder, so we don't lose sight of the actual goal
of this WG.

The reason we have been having this long discussion about the link
model, and the reason why I still think it is quite important to get
some basic agreement on terminology and architecture is so we can get
agreement and a shared understanding of what the actual problem is
this WG needs to work on. In the past, we were worlds apart as to what
the actual problem was and/or why existing protocols weren't good
enough. You can't have a discussion about that if the details of what
a MANET is (and is not) are not understood in a consistent manner.

Going back to the charter, here are two of original deliverables:

> - Develop an IPv6 address autoconfiguration mechanism to be used by ad
> hoc nodes for configuring unique local addresses as well as, in cases
> where Internet connectivity exists, globally routable unique
> addresses.

> - Develop a mechanism to promote configured address uniqueness in the
> situation where different ad hoc networks merge.

When I see the above words, I immediately ask such questions as :

- which "ad hoc nodes"? the Routers? the hosts hanging off of them?

- what is a ULA as referred to above? addresses that can be used
  within the MANET that are unique within the MANET? If so, why is it
  not good enough to use an IPv6 ULA prefix and the MANET router's MAC
  address to create unique addresses? (hint: the answer almost
  certainly depends on what assumption one makes about links/subnets)

and so forth.  

Thomas
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

---

From: "Emmanuel Baccelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:14:13 +0100

Hi Thomas,

>  certainly depends on what assumption one makes about links/subnets)

OK. So on this subject, could you actually tell us what you think about the
following definitions?

- a prefix defines a contiguous range of IP addresses.- a subnet is a set of
IP addresses (that may or may not be a prefix)
that are on the same link. These addresses are then on-link with
respect to this link. All other addresses are off-link.
- a link is what lower layers reach without TTL decrement, through a given
interface.

Do they make sense to you? Or what do you suggest alternatively?

cheers
Emmanuel