Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents

[Shubhranshu <shubranshu at gmail.com>]

Alex,

Please see inline comments

On 3/19/08, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com> wrote:
> Shubhranshu wrote:
> > Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ian Chakeres wrote:
> >>> I'd like to chime in on this conversation by saying that "MANET
> >>> link" is not a good term. MANET's (and the MANET WG protocols)
> >>> run over lots of kinds of different physical and logical links.
> >>> It just so happens that they may also often run over links with
> >>> asymmetric reachability.
> >> Maybe then trying to describe link-types in the AUTOCONF
> >> Architecture is actually listing those kinds of different physical
> >> and logical links on which MANET have been run?
> >>
> >> I have not run MANET.  But I ran other IPv6 protocols, and AUTOCONF
> >> is not limited to MANET, and the list of link-types I used are the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> Ethernet Bluetooth PPP RS232C USB
> >
> > I agree that defining term "MANET link" is not appropriate but I do
> > not see any point in listing all the links on which MANET has been
> > run.
>
> How would one otherwise start describing link types?

I assumed in my previous mail that by link you meant different L2
technologies since you listed bluetooth, USB, Ethernet, etc. One could
do that by describing its properties, behavior as seen by the IP.


>
> > MANET has not been run on any particular L2 technology does not imply
> > that MANET cannot run on that technology.
> >
> > I agree that having "IP Link Model" for MANET explained clearly would
> >  help here. The challenge is to express precisely, with appropriate
> > terminologies what the MANET community has been assuming while
> > designing and running MANET protocols. The current MANET Architecture
> >  document have text on this but since these questions keep coming, I
> > am inclined to think that including more specific text would help.
>
> Well, the current draft does not describe 'link type', neither 'IP Link
> Model', can't find.  What do you mean by current MANET Architecture
> document having text on this?  Which part, thank you.

I meant section 5.

- Shubhranshu

>
> If one understands link types the way people having deployed ND and DHCP
> understood link types then one wouldn't see a problem in running ND and
> DHCP on the link types on which MANET runs.
>
> Alex
>
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf