[manet] Re: MANET WG Charter and MANET Internetworking

>>> 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.

> I used the term SLAAC in an imprecise way.

Ah, okay then.

> Can we conceptualize an 8+8 address autoconfiguration scheme where
> the only "state" is the MANET router's unique interface identifier

Not only can we conceptualise it, I've actually implemented it back in
2007.  Unfortunately, I then changed everything, in order to make it into
a stateful protocol:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-ahcp/
  https://www.irif.fr/~jch/software/ahcp/
  https://github.com/jech/ahcpd

I could probably recover the original stateless implementation.


> This information could be propagated to all MANET routers by the MANET
> routing protocol.

Please, no.

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-homenet-configuration-separate/

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

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

> To give all MANET routers the appearance of being on-link with the current
> set of Internet access points and each other even if they may be multiple
> hops away in the MANET underlay. The alternative in the DHCPv6 case is to
> have all MANET routers also act as DHCPv6 relay agents, but that might not
> work so well in dynamic MANETs with rapidly changing topologies.

I don't agree that it's required.  It might, however, be a good idea,
since it provides better layering than the alternative.

-- Juliusz

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