[Sis-csi] No call today

[Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0)]

Keith,
 
I believe on can turn neighbor discovery off.  I believe many manets are
interested in turning neighbor discovery off to reduce chatter and
because one may not be connected to the manet or reachable during
another's neighbor discovery process.  Space applications would be
similar I suspect.

Yes, for any routing protocol, one needs bidirectional links.  Otherwise
one has  to simply use static or default route.  These of course could
be a weighted route such that if no other dynamic routes exist, send to
the default.
 
Regarding the NEMO comment:
 
 

                /------/                  /---.--/
                    |                         |
  2001:DB8:2:2::/64 |                         | 2001:DB8:3:3::1/64
                    |                         |
              +-----+----+              +-----'----+
              | Router A |..............| Router B |
              +----------+              +----------+
  Example 1           10.1.2.1       10.1.2.2
  Example 2        10.100.20.1       10.200.50.1
  Example 3    2001:DB8:1:1::1       2001:DB8:1:2::1


Example 1 is how IPv4 routing has to take place  (assume class C /24
networks)

Example 2 will not allow for IPv4 routing (RIP/OSPF) as the interfaces
are in different sub-networks.

Example 3 works for IPv6 because of link-local addressing.  We had three
routers in series, not just the two shown.  Okey will be writing this up
after the Holidays.  Everything so far has been over Ethernet.  I want
to make sure the same goes for Serial.  I believe is should, but I
always test my beliefs and have often been surprised.   



Will

PS the graphics were done with Jave Ascii Versatile Editor
http://www.jave.de/
 

******************************

William D. Ivancic

Phone 216-433-3494

Fax 216-433-8705

Lab 216-433-2620

Mobile 440-503-4892

http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic
<http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic>  

 


________________________________

	From: Scott, Keith L. [mailto:kscott at mitre.org] 
	Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:49 PM
	To: Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0); sis-csi at mailman.ccsds.org
	Cc: Mezu, Okechukwu A. (GRC-RCN0)
	Subject: RE: [Sis-csi] No call today
	
	
	Will,
	 
	Cool!  So if I understand correctly, two IPv6 routers configured
to use link-local addressing on the 'inter-router' interfaces will work,
regardless of the addresses on other router interfaces?  That makes
sense.  As I recall, the IPv6 neighbor discovery protocol requires
bidirectional exchanges (otherwise how do I know I'm not picking the
same address you did, however unlikely?)
	 
	I'm a bit confused about the v4 NEMO comment.  You're saying
that to effect a mobile subnet, the v4 NEMO is the only thing supported
by Cisco?  So you use v6 to form the inter-router connectivity and
tunnel v4 NEMO over it?
	 
	Anyway, I think this is good progress, thanks!
	 
	        --keith


________________________________

		From: Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0)
[mailto:william.d.ivancic at nasa.gov] 
		Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:33 AM
		To: Scott, Keith L.; sis-csi at mailman.ccsds.org
		Cc: Mezu, Okechukwu A. (GRC-RCN0)
		Subject: RE: [Sis-csi] No call today
		
		
		Keith,
		 
		FYI,  we need to take a closer look and document the
results, but it looks like IPv6 solves the subnetting and mobility
problems as shown in the C3I interoperability spec notional IPv4
network.  This is because IPv6 routers between routers using the
link-local addressing.  Thus I can put two routers on different global
subnets on the same link-local network and the routers will route using
IPv6.  Only if I use nemo for IPv4 will this work.  Furthermore, one
cannot configure an IPv4 router to have multiple interfaces in the same
or overlapping subnet (at least for Cisco routers).  The router will not
even except the command!  Instead is provides a warning similar to "Hey,
you can't do this!)
		 
		We have only worked with Ethernet links so far.  I want
to try with serial links also.
		 
		Will
		 

		******************************

		William D. Ivancic

		Phone 216-433-3494

		Fax 216-433-8705

		Lab 216-433-2620

		Mobile 440-503-4892

		http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic
<http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic>  

		 


________________________________

			From: sis-csi-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
[mailto:sis-csi-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Scott, Keith L.
			Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:51 AM
			To: sis-csi at mailman.ccsds.org
			Subject: [Sis-csi] No call today
			
			
			If anybody has updates, let's do it by email.
Next telecon Jan 4.
			 
			 
			Happy Holidays!
			 
			        --keith