Subject: RE: [manet] Gateway address resolution

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:35:44 -0400

Charlie Perkins wrote:

> Finally,
> the node can use its pre-existing IP address (not topologically
> correct) for bidirectional Internet communications, but in
> that case it has to use Mobile IP.

Charlie,

I think that even this limitation is not mandatory, as we discussed last week. In principle, if the Internet gateways to the MANET and the MANET hosts conduct ICMP Router Discovery (RFC 1256), and if the gateways maintain a complete list of all MANET hosts, as if the MANET host IP addresses were just arbitrary flat addresses, then MANET hosts should be able to conduct bidirectional Internet communications without going to Mobile IP.

The gateways would sort of operate like NATs, except that the MANET side is a flat address space. That's why the gateways need the exhaustive list of all MANET hosts.

Bert

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

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:39:14 -0700

Hello Bert,

In the case you describe, what address does a host in the Internet use
as the destination address, to connect with the manet node?

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:39:14 -0700

Hello Bert,

---

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:33:51 -0700

Bert (and others),

Several aspects of these discussions strike me as something of
a rehash of some exchanges that took place in this mailing list
in Mar-Apr 2001. Check the archives in that timeframe for topics
entitled: "Challenges for the MANET addressing model" and "MANET
and IP Layering". The draft Charlie Perkins referred to:

   draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-01.txt

is for the most part consistent with the rough concensus that
emerged from those earlier mailing list discussions, and takes
advantage of the nice properties of IPv6 neighbor discovery and
stateless address autoconfiguration for subnet convergence. I
would find any solution that requires NAT at the MANET border
gateways to be much less desireable.

Regards,

Fred Templin
[email-masked]

---

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:33:51 -0700

Bert (and others),

Regards,

Fred Templin
[email-masked]