RE: [RAM] Request to advance RFC4214 to Proposed Standard

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

Hi Fred, 
 
> that's really kind of too bad, as only the teensy-tiny Manets built  
> with 802.11 cards are limited in scope to small domains. For them to  
> scale properly, one will need to route, and one routes among sites.

Maybe what I said seemed too limiting, but I certainly don't
mean to restrict the ISATAP domain of applicability to only
teensy-tiny MANETs. When I say that I equate "MANET" to "site",
I left out the part that says that a site may in fact be
arbitrarily large and may contain other sites within it. In 
fact, here is how I define "MANET":

   "A MANET may be as large as an Autonomous System (AS) or as
    small as an individual site, and may also be a subnetwork of a
    larger site.  A MANET router (and its downstream-attached links)
    is a "site" unto itself, and a MANET is therefore a "site-of-
    sites"."

Does this clear up what I am intending in terms of what is
or is not in-scope for ISATAP?
 
> Fort Monmouth specifcally told me once that they considered an  
> individual soldier to be a site, as a soldier will have several  
> addressable devices in his PAN and they will want to route to the  
> collection of devices.

That is covered by my definition of MANET where I say:
"A MANET router (and its downstream-attached links) is
a "site" unto itself".

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
 
> On Mar 27, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> 
> > FWIW, please note also that I am specifically intending to
> > equate the terms "MANET" and "site" (see also the definition
> > for "MANET" in the I-D listed below).
> >
> > Fred
> > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Templin, Fred L
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:05 PM
> >> To: Fred Baker; Brian E Carpenter; Ron Bonica; Jari Arkko
> >> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Lindqvist Erik Kurt
> >> Subject: RE: [RAM] Request to advance RFC4214 to Proposed Standard
> >>
> >> Fred,
> >>
> >> Responding only to this one point for now:
> >>
> >>> In short, this
> >>> is not just "an" approach to coexistence; if the IPv6 Operations
> >>> Working Group is going to put its imprimatur on a technology,
> >>> I would want to know that we were recommending the *right* one.
> >>
> >> What ISATAP is good for is providing a link for connecting dual-
> >> stack routers within Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs), as well as
> >> mechanisms for autoconfiguration and discovery of multiple Internet
> >> gateways. It is important to note that the term "MANET" could mean
> >> anything from mobile platforms (planes, trains and 
> automobiles), to a
> >> home network, to a singleton node with an 
> aribtarily-complex network
> >> of physical or virtual nodes within. For other examples, please see
> >> the thread on "Real-life Deploymnet of MANETs" on the MANET mailing
> >> list:
> >>
> >>   http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg09029.html
> >>
> >> Informational aspects of the operation of ISATAP are documented
> >> in "MANET Autoconfiguration"; see:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-autoconf- 
> >> dhcp-07.txt
> >>
> >> but please note that this work (as well as ISATAP itself) derived
> >> from an earlier work titled: "Virtual Ethernet".
> >>
> >> Important point is that for the use-case of dual-stack routers
> >> communicating within a MANET, ISATAP already provides a mechanism
> >> that satisfies the needs of the IETF AUTOCONF wg and the so-called
> >> "MANEMO" interest group. Plus, it is shipping in major vendor OS's
> >> today.
> >>
> >> Thanks - Fred
> >> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >>
> >>
>