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