Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 17:36 +0100, Teco Boot wrote:
> Thomas,
> 
> Is this catching words?
> 
> Agreed that standard "not that clever" behavior of the IP stack is
> putting prefixes, configured on interfaces, in the routing table?
> 
> Agreed that putting other prefixes is 'something clever'?
> 
> Agreed that with the proposed addressing model, under conditions that
> the 'something clever' is not functioning, L3 communication fails for
> links between two nodes that have L2 communication?

I agree with this.

Carlos

> 
> If I am missing something, please come up with it.
> 
> Regards, Teco
> 
> 
> >-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >Van: Thomas Heide Clausen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >Verzonden: vrijdag 5 februari 2010 15:11
> >Aan: Teco Boot
> >CC: [e-mail]
> >Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document
> >
> >Dear Teco,
> >
> >On Feb 5, 2010, at 09:09 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Thomas,
> >>
> >>>>>> My point is that L3 communication becomes dependent on a L3
> >>>>>> routing
> >>>>>> protocol. We didn't have this in the IP stack before.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well.....L3 communication depends on a populated routing table,
> >>>>> thus
> >>>>> on something populating the routing table.
> >>>>> L3 multi-hop communications depends on something clever (a routing
> >>>>> protocol, a DHCP server, a human, for example and depending on the
> >>>>> place) populating routing tables.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do not see what this document does that changes that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Up to now, all IP addressing models I am aware of provide 1-hop L3
> >>>> communication between nodes that have L2 connectivity.
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposed addressing model for MANETs breaks this. Now there
> >>>> is a need for something clever. This clever thing could be
> >>>> stopped.
> >>>
> >>> What makes the route to the 'local network' appear in the routing
> >>> table? In that case the 'something clever' is whatever enters that
> >>> route. Often, that 'something clever' is the same thing as what
> >>> configures the interface....
> >>
> >> The IP stack puts the configured prefixes on IP interfaces in the
> >> routing table. This provides L3 connectivity whenever there is a L2
> >> link.
> >> The 'something clever' puts longer prefixes in the routing table.
> >
> >That's your idea of what constitutes "something clever".....I never
> >said that.
> >
> >> This could introduce multi-hop paths for 1-hop reachable nodes, for
> >> sure
> >> when link metrics are in place. And of course multi-hop paths to nodes
> >> that are in the MANET, but not 1-hop reachable.
> >>
> >> I strongly disagree with "that 'something clever' is the same thing as
> >> what configures the interface".
> >
> >I think it is quite clever when (quoting you): "The IP stack puts the
> >configured prefixes on IP interfaces in the  routing table."
> >
> >> Our old charter was clear the Autoconf
> >> mechanism shall be independent of MANET protocols.
> >
> >I do not see anything in this document which imposes a MANET protocol.
> >
> >Thomas
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards, Teco.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Autoconf mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67