Hi Alexandre,
On 17-Apr-19 21:41, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Le 16/04/2019 à 04:18, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> [...]
>> I think I will drop this discussion until ipwave gets its two
>> main drafts properly synchronized.
>
> I would like to ask you whether you disagree that we move the appendix
> titled "ND issues in wireless links" away from the IP-over-OCB draft
> into the IPWAVE Problem Statement draft?
My understanding now is that the IP-over-OCB draft is scoped only for
single-link subnets (i.e. does not even try to cover the case of
hidden nodes). I think that needs to be stated very clearly, and
I don't quite understand whether there is a non-link-local prefix
at all. In a very fluid network situation, it isn't at all obvious
that a useful non-link-local prefix can be established. The draft
seems a bit ambiguous on that point, so perhaps that can also be
clarified.
Given those changes, I agree that moving the appendix as you
suggest would be reasonable.
By the way, where you use the word "global" to describe IPv6
addresses or prefixes, I suggest using either "Globally Reachable"
(as defined in RFC8190) or "global unicast" as defined in RFC8200.
ULA != globally reachable.
ULA == global unicast
Regards
Brian
