Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications(Fwd:Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)

"Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> Mon, 09 August 2010 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469D328C121 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.057
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.872, BAYES_40=-0.185]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15u4O6WODsl7 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6048F28C11D for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=rahCrvuSmpBAwesTJMcrxvxgrpMOP6mZNdFU95xXwDrCsOpd2+IDbhgs8SjYVBEr; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [12.204.153.98] (helo=[10.166.130.108]) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1OiWZ0-0000zo-Bl; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:55:06 -0400
Message-ID: <4C6040F6.2020109@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:55:02 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
References: <4C528979.7010006@oracle.com><201008040756.04650.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <4C596602.1060308@earthlink.net><201008051039.03011.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <AANLkTikWgoUHeJsZwWDViVyavWXjvtLfffrosHPcCPya@mail.gmail.com> <4C5B3854.3050706@earthlink.net><E2946D37-14F1-4DC0-94C3-DC4FE6A3BE79@thomasclausen.org> <4C5C3EC8.50009@earthlink.net> <AANLkTinJJuuAevrFBCLRyR6HWoc-_bEcEonTqnFNL41O@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinJJuuAevrFBCLRyR6HWoc-_bEcEonTqnFNL41O@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52a0bfeb044ff03748e4df8dcf22e3fef3350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 12.204.153.98
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications(Fwd:Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:54:34 -0000

Hello Emmanuel,

To answer your implied request:

On 8/9/2010 10:29 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:

>     (c) the [autoconf] address allocation protocol design
>         should proceed on the assumption that non-routing
>         hosts are out of scope.
>
>
>
> here on the other hand, I think I disagree.  ...

> So at this point, either (i) there is priori art that
> provides autoconfiguration for nodes which have heterogeneous
> capabilities, and then let's consider it, ...

> I remember you mentioning that there is indeed prior art.

Here is a link to prior art, which I mentioned
in a previous email to you on this list:

>  .......         You might check [from year 2001]:
>     www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ebelding/txt/autoconf.txt

What do you think about that?

But, maybe more to the point, I know I have seen a
good half-dozen distinct approaches to this problem.
They have various advantages and disadvantages, but
they share one trait:
- they all provide addresses for both forwarding
   nodes and non-forwarding nodes.

Right now I can't think of a good approach that
actually does disqualify hosts.

Of course it's not a democracy, and the other authors
are not in the IETF.  I guess they don't like to have
five-year debates about what is a router and what is
a link.  But they are very sharp people.  I would have
thought that their insight, experience, development,
and testing might count for _something_.

Regards,
Charlie P.