[manet] Re: BABEL question

Hi Juliusz,

Thanks for this and good to know about AHCP, but my question was specific
to BABEL [RFC8966]. Christopher's post about the IP router nature of MANET
routers would seem to apply also to BABEL routers if that protocol were to be
adopted by MANET, correct?

Asked another way, do you expect periods of operation for BABEL networks in
which the only prefix available is Link-Local? I think that is the only alternative
for disconnected BABEL clouds that have not recently been in contact with an
Internet gateway that advertises a non-LL prefix - or is there some other IPv6
prefix that can be used in the disconnected case?

Thank you - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 2:39 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected] List <[email protected]>
> Subject: [manet] Re: BABEL question
> 
> > Section 2.5.6 of RFC4291 says:
> >
> >    “Routers must not forward any packets with Link-Local source or
> >     destination addresses to other links.”
> 
> > Based on a cursory read of your BABEL proposal,
> 
> You mean AHCP, right, not Babel?
> 
> > it appears that all addressing is Link-Local unless or until a global
> > address becomes available and so the protocol is presumably doing
> > multihop forwarding of packets with LL source or destination
> > addresses. How do you resolve this apparent discontinuity
> > with the IPv6 addressing architecture?
> 
> RFC 4291 deals with forwarding at the network layer, here they're being
> resent at the application layer.  The operational difference is that the
> source/destination addresses in the IP header are regenerated every time.
> 
> -- Juliusz
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]