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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 04 August 2010 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 3D37A3A67B2 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 SJmf0XSFuwsZ for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F311F3A6C04 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so2290462ewy.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.25.143 with SMTP id z15mr2143298ebb.6.1280936224973; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.197] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v59sm12976144eeh.22.2010.08.04.08.37.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4C596894.5050004@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:37:02 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <28D40890-32BE-4925-94DD-049E54B71B43@inf-net.nl>
References: <4C528979.7010006@oracle.com> <E21BA9FD-4715-4DA8-9586-9380126763E2@gmail.com> <4C58584D.2010604@earthlink.net> <379B3F32-224C-46C0-8599-913AD85A803E@inf-net.nl> <4C596894.5050004@earthlink.net>
To: Charles E. Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
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: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:39:42 -0000

Op 4 aug 2010, om 15:18 heeft Charles E. Perkins het volgende geschreven:

>> If a host uses tobe-RFC5889 and only uses a /128 prefix, and other nearby nodes
>> also use /128's, there is no connectivity.
> 
> What about point-to-point links?

Even then, a host would not use this link if it is not mentioned in the routing table.
You could say a host with one p2p link could set the default gateway automatically.
But how can the opposite node learn the topology?
If it is a single-homed host, this small setup of only two hosts would work.
Any other case results in nothing.


>> 1-hop neighbors can't know that the
>> host is reachable.
> 
> What about point-to-point links?
> 
>> I experienced this problem during maintenance or outage of
>> the routing protocol, I couldn't remotely repair. That is why I use another
>> addressing model, that doesn't has this shortcoming. It supports all types of
>> nodes. A big, big difference.
> 
> I never experienced this with AODV, which
> could use all point-to-point links.

So you stop AODV, and AODV still operates???
Can't be.


>> This is why I support the title change.
> 
> I'm still mystified, unless (as Henning opines)
> we've strayed into the magical land of politics.

A node that runs AODV is a router, because AODV is a routing protocol.
More detailed answer: in AODV, the subnet router is responsible for 
reachability for the subnet. In our addressing model, with /128 subnet, 
there is only one node in the subnet, that is the subnet router.
So the document applies only to routers in ad hoc networks.

Demystified ?


We can discuss wrongly used _host_ in HIP, DHCP, Host Route etc., if time permits.
Not for today.


Teco