[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Some IPv6LL operational experience




Hello Keith,

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.

Thus when I see:

Keith Moore wrote:

>I'm all for enabling ad hoc networks, and I'm all for enabling link-specific
>applications.  But trying to overload IP to do these is doing real harm.
>
I wonder just what you might mean.  IP is very good for forwarding 
packets in a
multihop network.

>  
>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.

>  An ad hoc network is a different beast than the Internet and you
>can't expect apps in general to transparently work on both kinds of network.
>
That's news to many people in the [manet] group!  Why not??

>At the very least you need an API to allow apps to declare whether they work
>on one kind or both.  And the default needs to be the Internet.
>
I also can't understand this.


Regards,
Charlie P.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------