Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 05 March 2009 14:03 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 ACF993A6971; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 06:03:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.181
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 PfAIc7JDYxsc; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 06:03:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1574B3A684B; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 06:03:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nephilia.intra.cea.fr (nephilia.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.33]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id n25E1fx1026750; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:01:41 +0100
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by nephilia.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n25E3QPP017400; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:03:27 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id n25E3Q90024462; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:03:26 +0100
Message-ID: <49AFDBAE.7020304@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:03:26 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HyungJin Lim <dream.hjlim@gmail.com>
References: <20090304163257.82E843A6B2E@core3.amsl.com> <7e8d02d40903041552r5a38bd1dp59ab865c0f463c@mail.gmail.com> <7e8d02d40903050014u556bd7cbof6d7ec2d54901dd4@mail.gmail.com> <49AFAB9F.3050704@gmail.com> <49AFB657.9020407@gmail.com> <7e8d02d40903050430w6595a651g9e271332915e8383@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7e8d02d40903050430w6595a651g9e271332915e8383@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:03:02 -0000
HyungJin Lim a écrit : > Hi, Alex, > > Inline... > > 2009/3/5 Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com > <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>> > > Alexandru Petrescu a écrit : > > HyungJin Lim a écrit : > > I'm sorry for correction about the following comment and > duplicate comments. > My first language is not English. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *HyungJin Lim* <dream.hjlim@gmail.com > <mailto:dream.hjlim@gmail.com> <mailto:dream.hjlim@gmail.com > <mailto:dream.hjlim@gmail.com>>> > Date: 2009/3/5 > Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc > Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf) > To: iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org> > <mailto:iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>> > Cc: autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org> > <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>>, > alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com > <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> > <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com > <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>> > > > Inline... > > 2009/3/5 IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org > <mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org> > <mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org > <mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org>>> > > A modified charter has been submitted for the Ad-Hoc Network > Autoconfiguration working group in the Internet Area of > the IETF. The > IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified > charter is > provided below for informational purposes only. Please > send your > comments > to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org > <mailto:iesg@ietf.org> <mailto:iesg@ietf.org > <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>) by > Wednesday, March 11, 2009. > > Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf) > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Last Modified: 2009-02-18 > > Current Status: Active Working Group > > Additional information is available at > tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf> > <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf> > > Chair(s): > Ryuji Wakikawa [ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com > <mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com> > <mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com > <mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com>>] > Thomas Clausen [T.Clausen@computer.org > <mailto:T.Clausen@computer.org> > <mailto:T.Clausen@computer.org <mailto:T.Clausen@computer.org>>] > > Internet Area Director(s): > Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net > <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net > <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>>] > Mark Townsley [townsley@cisco.com > <mailto:townsley@cisco.com> <mailto:townsley@cisco.com > <mailto:townsley@cisco.com>>] > > Internet Area Advisor: > Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net > <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net > <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>>] > > Mailing Lists: > General Discussion: autoconf@ietf.org > <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org> <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org > <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>> > To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > Archive: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html > > Description of Working Group: > > In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes > (refer to RFC > 2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with > local addresses > that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may > also need to > configure globally routable addresses, in order to > communicate with > devices on the Internet. From the IP layer perspective, > an ad hoc > network presents itself as a L3 multi-hop network formed > over a > collection of links. > > In here, I have a question ! > What's meaning of globally routable addresses ? > > > I think it's a commonly agreed term, in the IPv6 Addressing > Architecture RFC. > > I think globally routable addresses should include > topologically correct address and topologically incorrect > address. > > > Correct relative to what? > > The reason I address this is that the NEMO basic support > should configure topologically incorrect address in nested NEMO. > > > I agree: addresses configured within a nested NEMO moving > network are probably topologically incorrect with respect to the > CoA and subnet assigned to the top-level Mobile Router egress > interface of a parent NEMO moving network. > > But topologically incorrect address is also globally > routable addresses if it a packet forwarding mechanism > (e.g., tunneling) is supported, not packet routing(e.g. > OLSR, DYMO, etc.). > > > I agree. > > The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the > addressing model > for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks > configure their > addresses. It is required that such models do not cause > problems for ad > hoc-unaware parts of the system, such as standard > applications running > on an ad hoc node or regular Internet nodes attached to > the ad hoc > nodes. This group's effort may include the development of > new protocol > mechanisms, should the existing IP autoconfiguration > mechanisms be found > inadequate. However, the first task of the working group > is to describe > one practical addressing model for ad hoc networks. > > What's meaning of practical addressing model ? > *Although we already discussed this issue in MANEMO BoF,* > *we should *consider practical scenarios for practical > addressing model in real world I think. > The only simplest scenario *can not* satisfy requirements > and other aspects in more complex scenario which include > Internet connectivity, nested pattern, group mobility, > wireless coverage, and so on. > I would like suggest to define some requirements for > practical scenarios. > Then, the simplest scenario also can be considered as a base > topic of them I think. > > > I tend to agree with the approach > > I'm just afraid that defining new requirements may lengthen the > process of coming up with a practical addressing model. I think > the word practical is there to just mean that in practice many > of us may write an addressing model in a very straightforward > manner, which would work in each one's particular case. > > Maybe we could find the practical and easiest simplest most > convenient way of a common denominator addressing models for > some very simple dynamic networks. > > > > If the simplest scenario can cover various aspects from some scenarios > including more complex situations, it's OK. > > > But yes, I agree with you on the necessity to come up with the > simplest scenario as a base topic for more complex. > > > > In some scenarios Teco addressed in previous comment, we can > meet situations that the simplest scenario do not cover. > How about considering from the simples scenario to meaningful > complex scenario. > After defining their requirements such as address configuration > models, some impacts from them, possible situation we will meet due to > wireless coverage, some impacts from group mobility pattern and dynamic > topology change, we can suggest the addressing model for ad hoc > networks and for future Internet I think. Well yes I tend to agree but I currently can't understand the requirements as stated until now. > The following URL shows a representative scenario we can meet for example. But the URL shows several scenarios :-) Which one do you think? I myself prefer the left diagram in Figure 5 (egress-to-egress). > We already have discussed about the practical scenario several times in > NEMO. and MANEMO. I agree. > This is not a new issue but we did not define this I > think. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wakikawa-manemoarch-00 > > Is it right that MANET includes MANEMO ? Well if the answer were yes, and said so in the Charter, then I'd certainly have a higher interest in AUTOCONF. Ever since the MANEMO BoF was re-directed to AUTOCONF never was there any sign of "NEMO" neither in the old nor new Charter. Whereas previous Charter was saying "MANET" the current proposal only says "ad-hoc network" and "ad-hoc unaware" - is this freedom to interpret it as including NEMO? Alex
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… Teco Boot
- [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network… IESG Secretary
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Net… Alexandru Petrescu
- [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network… IESG Secretary
- [Autoconf] Fwd: WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Ne… Ryuji Wakikawa