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

["Teco Boot" <teco at inf-net.nl>]

Hi Fred,

>> >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?

I'm not sure. I can't publish all my scenario's here.
But for sure the baccelli draft does not support all of them.
That is why I asked questions on "all" "general case" etc.

I have a few real world use cases by hand that could be made public.
Maybe I'll write those down some day. It would show the need for
multi-homing. An interesting one: Regional fire brigades: small 
MANETs connected to Internet with ADSL, 3G and two satcom systems.
It is deployed in a couple of months. Any idea on addressing model,
without NAPT / NAT66 or tunnels?
IPv6 is not realistic here and today anyway. But it would fit a nice
goal: an attached MANET without NAT or tunnels. And with a little 
effort on replacing default gateways, it would support multi-homing.

Regards, Teco