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

"Charles E. Perkins" <> Mon, 09 August 2010 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469D328C121 for <>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.057
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.872, BAYES_40=-0.185]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15u4O6WODsl7 for <>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6048F28C11D for <>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; 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 [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1OiWZ0-0000zo-Bl; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:55:06 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:55:02 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emmanuel Baccelli <>
References: <><> <><> <> <><> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52a0bfeb044ff03748e4df8dcf22e3fef3350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications(Fwd:Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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]:

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_.

Charlie P.