Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

HyungJin Lim a écrit :
> Hi, Alex,
>  
> Inline...
> 
> 2009/3/5 Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>     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* <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>             Date: 2009/3/5
>             Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc
>             Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
>             To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>             [e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> 
>             Inline...
> 
>             2009/3/5 IESG Secretary <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> 
>                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 ([e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>) 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 [[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>                <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
>                Thomas Clausen [[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
> 
>                Internet Area Director(s):
>                Jari Arkko [[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
>                Mark Townsley [[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
> 
>                Internet Area Advisor:
>                Jari Arkko [[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
> 
>                Mailing Lists:
>                General Discussion: [e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>                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