On 03/26/10 11:04 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Erik,
First of all, the document is *an* addressing model for ad hoc networks.
It does not claim to be the only model. For instance, during working
group discussions it also became apparent that link local addresses
could also be employed, albeit -- as stated in the document -- the
working group prefers other types of addresses.
Note that this document talks about prefix and address configuration,
not router IDs. You assume that we talk about router IDs because the
document says that it would be beneficial to have the addresses be
unique within a routing domain. But that's not the reason. The reason is
that in an ad hoc network you may end up being a neighbor to any other
device, and you want to avoid an address collision merely for the
reasons of not getting a collision of two same addresses in the same link.
This paragraph talks about the requirements of the routing protocols,
not about the need for routers to move around:
Routing protocols running on a router may exhibit different
requirements for uniqueness of interface addresses; some have no such
requirements, others have requirements ranging from local uniqueness
only, to uniqueness within, at least, the routing domain (as defined
in [RFC1136]).
The only requirement I know if in the *routing protocols* is around
router ID uniqueness.
If you disagree, then can you please explain why there is a need to
refer to routing protocols in the above paragraph?
Erik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf