Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 21 July 2010 16:15 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 D77313A68CE for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 AO4ayLjbC7kc for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:15:12 -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 E6D833A68CD for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so2687564ewy.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.31.83 with SMTP id x19mr6454242ebc.82.1279728926822; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.168] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v59sm53588019eeh.16.2010.07.21.09.15.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:15:26 -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: <4C4706D8.5040904@piuha.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:15:24 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <32B2F99E-B762-4AA6-BDA1-90405B691C90@inf-net.nl>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <4C2CFADD.3040909@piuha.net> <4C378C29.2040302@oracle.com> <4C4706D8.5040904@piuha.net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
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, 21 Jul 2010 16:15:14 -0000

Op 21 jul 2010, om 16:40 heeft Jari Arkko het volgende geschreven:

>>> OLD:
>>> Therefore, autoconfiguration solutions should be encouraged to
>>> primarily focus on configuring IP addresses that are not IPv6 link-
>>> local.
>>> NEW:
>>> Therefore, an autoconfiguration solution which provides a mechanism for
>>> assigning addresses with a wider scope than IPv6 link-local alone will
>>> be more generally useful than one that does not.
>> 
>> That misses the point. It is the motivation for this recommendation which is confused and misleading, and not the conclusion itself. The motivation is that applications (other than routing protocols) most likely desire to communicate across the whole Ad Hoc network, if not across the whole Internet, which makes link-local addresses of limited use.
> 
> We agree so far.
> 
>> But they can still be quite useful as for the purposes of routing protocols, and bootstrapping address autoconfiguration protocols.
> 
> And no one is disputing that. However, as stated in the document there are routing protocols that _do_ require non-link local addresses. So while I agree with your "can be still quite useful" claim I do not see a basis for claiming that link local addresses should be the one and only form of address configuration for routing protocols, or even that such addresses must be available as part of an addressing model.

Some say NHDP / OLSR need non-link local addresses. I don't agree on this. They use link-local destination address and all messages are hop-by-hop forwarded. Source IP Address could (Chris Dearlove) / should (Henning Rogge) be link local. 
Originator Address must be unique in the MANET (OLSR) or two hops (NHDP).
See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg11004.html

What routing protocols _do_ require non-link local addresses?
<answer>
  DYMO OrigNode.Address must be non-link local, but DYMO packets 
  to LL-MANET-Routers would use link local source address.
  And of course we need non-link locals for apps.
</answer>

Teco