Subject: [Autoconf] Comments on draft-baccelli-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-01.txt

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:56:21 +0200

Hi all,

	Thanks for writing the draft. Although we are still far from reaching
our goal, I think this is making progress.

	I've gone through a first read of the draft and I share some of the
opinions that have been already posted in this ML:

	- I agree that due to the characteristics of MANETs, it might be a good
idea to use /32 and /128 on all MANET interfaces (although we don't have
yet a clear definition of what a MANET interface is :->). This solve the
problem of assuming that one neighbor is on the same link (i.e.
reachable within one IP hop).

	- On the other hand, I also agree that the above (forcing /128) forbids
the use of link-local addresses, _in my understanding_. So far I don't
have a proposal to solve this contradiction, but I share some of Alex's
concerns and I think this is important and it is not enough to say in
the appendix that link-locals are not forbidden.

	- I also share the comment on the terminology issue of saying
"undetermined connectivity properties". Again, I don't have a suggestion
for a better text now, I'll try to come up with something to be
suggested.

	- Regarding the global/local address uniqueness issue, I also think we
should agree on what we need here. In the "non-MANET" world, by ensuring
local uniqueness on the link, we could safely assume that global
uniqueness would be ensured (for those cases where it's needed, since
unique global prefixes would be advertised/used on these links).
Depending on the addressing model we finally agree on, this might be
different in a MANET. So far, I agree on using the routing domain as the
scope for ensuring address uniqueness.

	Thanks,

	Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67