Re: [Autoconf] Another addressing model for AUTOCONF

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 23/07/2010 12:58, Teco Boot a écrit :
> Alex,
>
> Quick comments:
> Your example 2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24 share a common prefix.

WEll no, they are different prefixes, as implemented by IP stacks, as 
considered by the routing tables and their lookup algorithms, as 
considered by the ND tables.

> Better use 2001:1::/32 and 2001:2::/32 or longer, e.g. /64.

Why 32 instead of 24?

> On your presso:
> I would not use same ssid on APs in all vehicles. (slide 2, essid: "V3").

Thanks for the comment.  It would indeed be good to have different 
ESSIDs within vehicles, in order to prevent potential interference.

However, we have noticed that within a vehicle there is little chance 
that WiFi signal gets outside, because of shielding - hence no risk of 
interference.

> And I dislike the address spoofing mode, suggested in slide 4.

WEll no, I don't suggest any address spoofing mode.  What in slide4 
makes you think so?  I could explain. (see jpg attached).

> So it so +1 on others remarks.

It's still -1 on my side :-)

Alex

>
> Teco.
>
>
> Op 22 jul 2010, om 23:01 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Addressing model we use, pdf 300Kb:
>>
>>                  http://dl.free.fr/m95j1Km7a
>> (the username is left empty and password is 'password', without
>> quotes.  File stays there for 30 days.)
>>
>> Teco asked whether my draft contains an addressing model... true - it doesn't show so obviously
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-00).
>>
>> I said that there is an addressing model in this figure of the draft:
>>>                            egress|              |egress
>>>              ----     ----    ----              ----     ----    ----
>>>             | LFN|   |LFN |  | MR |            | MR |   |LFN |  |LFN |
>>>              ----     ----    ----              ----     ----    ----
>>>                |        | ingress|              |ingress   |      |
>>>               ---------------------             ---------------------
>>>                    2001:1::/24                       2001:2::/24
>>
>> ThomasC and Chris also expressed doubts with respect to LFN--MR--MR--LFN
>> topology and link-local addresses; let me explain further.
>>
>> We are using this addressing model on several moving networks. See the pdf at the beginning of this email. They show MR-to-MR with a single addressing scheme, then with a double addressing scheme; (double is necessary for our plan.)
>>
>> And then a slide shows MR-to-MR-to-MR addressing model.
>>
>> There are some scalability remarks and a route propagation model (pencil
>> and paper).
>>
>> The mechanism has been prototyped and demoed since about one year now,
>> on three Mobile Routers and a bunch of LFNs, which shows it may work. We
>> have great plans for demoing on vehicles.
>>
>> This is an addressing model we consider strongly. It needs later to
>> auto-configure some prefixes, because currently MNPs are pre-configured
>> in each moving network (this is the case in some deployments).
>>
>> This addressing model is important to us, and uses link-local addresses.
>>
>> Alex
>> _______________________________________________
>> Autoconf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
>