Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Charles E. Perkins" <> Tue, 03 March 2009 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5823A6968 for <>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 15:26:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XX8b1p4o8Oae for <>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 15:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5283A67E9 for <>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 15:26:54 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=Qh1NrCqEdQ3s47DkaKlggsUZQG9z3FqbsMt7Qsvb9eN+/M4ulr7XDAaGkUk/zOvn; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1Lee1A-0007rV-V6; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:27:21 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:27:20 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <>
References: <> <> <> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl> <> <007201c99903$c4182c80$4c488580$@nl> <> <007b01c99911$907facf0$b17f06d0$@nl> <> <009501c99920$92154340$b63fc9c0$@nl> <> <003001c99b2c$a3fcf4a0$ebf6dde0$@nl> <> <000101c99c3c$3121a870$9364f950$@nl> <> <000c01c99c4f$d1ab1750$750145f0$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <000c01c99c4f$d1ab1750$750145f0$@nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f523073ddb5abed83b1af65e0939b10933d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
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: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:26:55 -0000

Hello Teco,

You raise interesting questions, but I think mostly
not definitive for the questions at hand.  I don't know
if I have any good answers, but here are some comments.

Teco Boot wrote:
> As long as I designed and maintained network infrastructures, I worked with
> "/32 management addresses" on loopback interfaces. Still, I have annoying
> experiences with routers that select the outgoing interface address as
> default source address. Shutting down an interface could have unintended bad
> impact on your terminal session. Same for link flapping due to other causes.

I guess this is relevant for packet forwarders with more than one
network interface.  For our little wireless nodes that have a single
interface, I don't imagine we'd see that kind of interface aggravation.

> For this reason, many routers on the Internet use the loopback interface for
> "management". "Management" is the host application on routers. There are
> lots of design guidelines for this. My proposal is using the "Internet
> lessons learned" in the MANET. Nothing wrong with this, agreed?

I know only a small bit about this.  Do you have a favorite
document that I could read to learn more?

> With MobileIP, we are discussing a host (could be NEMO Router, but then it
> acts as host on the visiting link). The MobileIP stack is interested in the
> status of the visiting link, but does it propagate this to the applications?
> Or use the applications some kind of virtual interface (e.g. a loopback
> interface)? Or spoof ifup for interface to home link?

Whether or not applications have access to link information is
something not closely related to Mobile IP.  Whether or not
the care-of address is available to applications is a surprisingly
complicated question, which in my opinion opens the door to
many interesting questions and indicates the insufficiency of
today's typical application socket interface.

I've had a lot of ideas about how to fix this, but never been
able to initiate a project to supply a finished proposal.

Charlie P.