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

Teco Boot <> Wed, 04 August 2010 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D37A3A67B2 for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.506
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJmf0XSFuwsZ for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F311F3A6C04 for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so2290462ewy.31 for <>; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z15mr2143298ebb.6.1280936224973; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id v59sm12976144eeh.22.2010. (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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:37:02 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Charles E. Perkins <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
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: 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.