Skip to main content

IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks


(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert
No Objection
Comment (2010-03-09) Unknown
>                  IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks

  Title doesn't fit the document too well - the document is not only
  about ad hoc networks, and it doesn't describe a general IP addressing
  model, just guidelines for addressing router interfaces.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes () Unknown

Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2010-03-10) Unknown
It seems the content of this document could be summarized "if you want
to use a routing protocol that requires unique addresses (within the
routing domain), link-local addresses are not sufficient (since
they're unique only within a link)".

I wonder if the document title should be more precise about this?
Perhaps something like "Why Link-Local Addresses Are Not Sufficient
For Ad Hoc Routers"?
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2010-03-10) Unknown
Expand DAD (end of section 6.2).  For consistency, either use "DAD" in both 6.1 and 6.2, or in neither.
The first paragraph of section doesn't accurately describe the applicability:

   The configuration proposed by this model is applicable to any
   router's IP interface.  It specifies IP addresses and IP subnet
   prefixes to be configured on network interfaces.

Perhaps "This model gives guidance about the autoconfiguration of IP addresses and the IP subnet prefixes as on-link on router's IP interfaces."??
I was OK with section 4 up to and including the principle about not configuring an interface with any knowledge of on-link prefixes.  Then I got lost. While the following paragraph about L2 communication regardless of configuration of on-link prefixes is true, it's seems irrelevant because the principle advices against the configuration of on-link prefixes.  The last paragraph may also be true, but appears out of place in a document about a network model in which nothing can be guaranteed about on-going L2 connectivity.
Re-reading sectinos 6.1 and 6.2, I am pretty sure there is no fundamental difference in the ways in which this model can be applied to IPv6 and IPv4.  For example, doesn't this observation apply to IPv4 as well as IPv6?

   o  There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local addresses are
      unique across multiple links, hence they can not be used to
      reliably identify routers.

"routers" or "router interfaces" - which hints at something that might need clarification: IP addresses are used both as interface addresses and sometimes, by selecting one global address from those assigned to the interfaces, as an identifier for the entire router.

Why does the model suggest no on-link prefixes for IPv6 and allow /32 on-link prefixes for IPv4?  Why not /128s for IPv6 or, conversely, no prefixes for IPv4?
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2010-03-09) Unknown
  The Gen-ART Review by Francis Dupont on 2010-02-27 included very
  minor editorial comments.  Please consider them if an update to
  this document is needed for any reason.