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

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