Re: [Autoconf] Regarding Baccelli/Townsley Internet-Draft

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com>]

Teco,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teco Boot [mailto:teco at inf-net.nl]
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 1:05 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: autoconf at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Regarding Baccelli/Townsley Internet-Draft
> 
> >Templin, Fred L wrote:
> 
> >Second, I want there to be flexibility to allow for
> >"tethered" hosts that are always single-hop neighbors
> >on a router's interface that otherwise has undetermined
> >connectivity properties. That may mean that the router's
> >interface may need to configure a prefix other than /32 or
> >/128.
> 
> Yes, I deploy this stuff.
> 
> But proponents on the baccelli draft would say this is
> supported, as there is some determined connectivity.
> I'm not sure this is valid argumentation, because I
> think the proponents know little of my MANETs.

Are you saying that we need a use case analysis of
the abundance of possible MANET scenarios?

Fred
fred.l.templin at boeing.com
 
> But also for this case (same as LLs), I think it makes sense
> we Autoconf work on for a maximum-length, global / ULA prefix.
> But the practical addressing model for MANETs shall dot say
> these are preferred. These are needed if nothing else is
> available and can be a stepping stone to acquire other prefixes.
> 
> 
> Regards, Teco