Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Wed, 25 August 2010 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4B13A67F0 for <>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.67
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vAGKsMZFWGMu for <>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D30F3A67C3 for <>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,267,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="83759200"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2010 09:45:09 +0100
Received: from glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o7P8j8jn010810; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:45:08 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([]) by glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:45:08 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:45:07 +0100
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609170@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
Thread-Index: ActDw2ELbPsrydRhRyCW1SDKRfqxBQAbgnBw
References: <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2010 08:45:08.0417 (UTC) FILETIME=[D265E310:01CB4431]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
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, 25 Aug 2010 08:44:37 -0000

I didn't make the definition, go back to RFC 2501. 

If the node is to be mobile, attaching at different points,
available as a destination to others, it has to be running

Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Communications and Networks Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles E. Perkins [] 
Sent: 24 August 2010 20:34
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for

                    *** WARNING ***

  This message has originated outside your organisation,
  either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

Hello Chris,

A node can easily participate in an ad hoc network
without running OLSR or DYMO or any routing protocol.
Why make the restriction?  I don't understand the value
proposition of disenfranchising so many users and
invalidating so many use cases.

On 8/24/2010 1:55 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

> a node has been defined as a router plus possible hosts. If you've got
> a wireless device that wants to participate in a MANET it needs to be
> running an ad hoc routing protocol, i.e. it's a router.

Well, opinions vary here, to say the least.

>                                                  It may perform
> only a limited subset of routing functions - consider for example an
> OLSR node that does not wish to be a relay, only an endpoint.

I can agree, because the null set is a subset of any set.
Do you call a node that implements a null subset of the routing
functions to be a router?

>                       It can
> do that by setting WILLINGNESS equal to zero, and if it is built only
> to take such a role it can then throw away large chunks of OLSR code
> (for example it never sends TC messages). But the node still has some
> router functions.

For instance, could you name one?

>            This is the model of both RFC 2501 and 5889-to-be.
> The host can then get its addresses in any non-MANET-specific way on
> that node.

You didn't say why the node has to be a router, except by
pure dint of the logic that it has to be a router.

I don't find that terribly convincing -- and, I do find
it pretty harmful to the prospects of ad hoc networks.

RFC 2501 says:

>                                               ....       a set
>    of nodes--which may be combined routers and hosts--themselves form
>    the network routing infrastructure in an ad hoc fashion.

Let's take it as given that the routers in a MANET are the
nodes that establish the network connectivity (when possible).

Where does it say that a node that DOES NOT do this is then
disqualified for residence in an ad hoc network?

Charlie P.

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.