On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: > Markus, > > I still don't understand the intent of the "ad hoc" interface type. > > If the ad-hoc interface is designed for non-transitive links, then the draft > should say so (in which case I'll be glad to provide you with suitable > prose). However, in this case it should also identify the bits of DNCP > which are not applicable to non-transitive interfaces (Section 6.1.5, > obviously, but I don't understand DNCP well enough to say if there are > others). > > Section 4 speaks of "ad-hoc mode" -- does that mean 802.11 IBSS? If it is, > then you should use the proper terminology, but I think that support for > non-transitive links should not be restricted to 802.11 (even if the > implementation is limited to it). > > And sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I would like the ability to > set up a router-router link with less than a full /64 allocated to it, at > least in the ad-hoc case.
+10 on /128 support. I have way more p2p links than available 64s. > -- Juliusz > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet -- Dave Täht worldwide bufferbloat report: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat And: What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
