Hi Michael, actually, MANET protocols have been working for years to provide mesh-over routing, without multi-link subnets.
To understand better the "link" properties you have to deal with, you could take a look at this draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-02 As Ulrich mentioned, the conclusion of AUTOCONF was that IP links as we know them do *not* make sense in a spontaneous wireless multi-hop environment. This conclusion was documented in RFC 5889, which essentially bans the use of subnet prefixes in this environment. And without subnet prefixes, what is the purpose of an IP link? Not much... Best, Emmanuel On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>wrote: > > Ulrich, thank for starting a new thread on this topic as I asked. > > I am looking forward to understanding how we can do mesh-over networking > without creating multi-link subnets. > > It might just be that we need to always auto-configure /128 addresses on > the > interfaces, and use /128 routes everywhere. > That's what my code does in order to implement multi-link subnets. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > r...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
