[manet] Re: BABEL question

> 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?

Ah, sorry.

No, Babel does not change the IP forwarding rules, and a Babel router will
not forward packets with a link-local destination.  Babel is a traditional
routing protocol which happens to have good support for host routes, and
therefore is useful in a MANET environment.

> Asked another way, do you expect periods of operation for BABEL networks
> in which the only prefix available is Link-Local?

Babel routers can in principle function with link-local only (à la
RFC 7404).  However, end hosts need a routable address in order to have
something useful to put in the source and destination addresses of the
data packets.

> 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?

fc00::/7

-- Juliusz

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