[manet] Re: [IPv6]Re: IPv6 Address for Ad Hoc Networks

Hi Kyle,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kyle Rose <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2024 11:45 AM
> To: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>
> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>; IPv6 List <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [IPv6]Re: IPv6 Address for Ad Hoc Networks
> 
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 2:35 PM Bob Hinden <[email protected]> wrote:
> > IMHO, this draft should not specify any specific prefixes.   It should all be “To be assigned”.   Including it now is a distraction to the more
> important question.
> >
> > I think the question that needs to be answered is:  Is there a real need for Ad Hoc IPv6 addresses?   Focusing now on the details or which
> or how many prefixes it might use doesn’t address that.
> 
> It sounds like the main example use case is a mobile ad-hoc network,
> e.g., of vehicles traveling on a highway at different speeds and with
> no ability to pre-define a mesh or to pre-determine routes within that
> network to connected resources.
> 
> Has anyone proposed concretely building such a thing with a particular
> application in mind?

MANETs are an easy-to-understand special case that clearly highlight why Multilink Local
Addresses (MLAs) are necessary, but the MLA case also applies to any variety of IPv6
local area network that may not be particularly mobile. Imagine giving a networking
novice a box of arbitrary networking gear (routers, switches, cables, etc) and then ask
them to just blindly start plugging cables into ports randomly. The network should be
able to come up and have all connected nodes self-assign MLAs and be able to ping6
any other node in the arbitrary topology using multihop routes if necessary. And
all of this without any infrastructure connections to the Internet.

> I'm trying to figure out whether this is WG or RG territory.

This is proposed as an update of RFC5889. When RFC5889 was published, it was
decided to work this in the Intarea because the principles apply more broadly to
any kind of Ad Hoc network and not just those that are mobile. The current
document updates RFC5889, but it is IPv6 only hence 6man looks like the
appropriate working group.

Thank you - Fred

> Kyle

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]