[manet] Re: MANET WG Charter and MANET Internetworking

> Julien,

Julius.  Completely different emperors.

> we need to get out into the open what the alternatives are and what
> their advantages or limitations are before we can settle on charter
> text.

I'd expect things to happen the other way around (charter first, solutions
later), but okay.

> The two autoconfiguration alternatives are 1) stateless based on SLAAC,

SLAAC doesn't work with routers.  We've all tried, but it cannot possibly
work.

(There's no mechanism to break RA loops, so if a MANET router ever needs
to send an RA, say to an attached stub network, you lose.  You can design
all sorts of workarounds, such as those proposed by the SNAC group, but
I personally find them brittle and distasteful.)

> stateful based on DHCPv6

I'm fairly sure you need state, but I don't see how that entails DHCPv6.

> Here again, an overlay multilink network interface is needed to
> coordinate the multiple interfaces.

I must have missed a step.  Why is that required?

-- Juliusz

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