Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.
"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> Mon, 05 July 2010 10:42 UTC
Return-Path: <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
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 A73883A68AD for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 03:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.227
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 YWg9oob9Mtql for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 03:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ukmta3.baesystems.com (ukmta3.baesystems.com [20.133.40.55]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B9C3A63EC for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 03:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,539,1272841200"; d="scan'208";a="74479863"
Received: from unknown (HELO baemasodc004.greenlnk.net) ([10.108.36.11]) by Baemasodc001ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 05 Jul 2010 11:42:17 +0100
Received: from glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET (glkms1103.greenlnk.net [10.108.36.194]) by baemasodc004.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o65AgGte010916; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:42:16 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.93]) by glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:42:16 +0100
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:42:16 +0100
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0336CE39@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <4C31B2A4.5050101@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
thread-topic: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.
thread-index: AcscLCaHCexfh7NbTrOgPHO7ISMA6QAAOH3A
References: <BFD8FF22-FD36-436E-9985-7BFA2E234081@gmail.com> <201006290803.34192.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de><ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0333F14C@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET><4C2A723E.3020806@piuha.net><4C2B801B.1070004@earthlink.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0333FC2D@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET><C67EC3A73E6A814B8F3FE826438C5F8C02A00D5E@ms-dt01thalia.tsn.tno.nl> <4C2E3702.9030606@cisco.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0336CD4D@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C31B2A4.5050101@cisco.com>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2010 10:42:16.0665 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC7E2C90:01CB1C2E]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] 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: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:42:17 -0000
I think asking for a naming convention is missing the point. It's an issue of requirements. I don't have a name for "sorry, I can't just use a single DHCP server as someone hostile might put it out of action". For the issue of ubiquity, we don't have a single means of obtaining an IP address in the rest of the Internet, not even the two of fixed and dynamic. -- Christopher Dearlove Technology Leader, Communications Group Networks, Security and Information Systems Department 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: Mark Townsley [mailto:townsley@cisco.com] Sent: 05 July 2010 11:24 To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal. *** 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. On 7/5/10 11:23 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > I'm going to disagree with that, because there are fundamentally > different requirements - not all MANETs are the same. Is there a naming convention for all the different MANET types? How do you tell them apart? > The > proposed solution in the current draft charter is a single > DHCP server. Putting aside the technical issues in getting that > to work that Charlie and others have pointed out, let's suppose > it can be made to work. But there are several of us whose areas > of interest, and scenarios within that area of interest, would > regard such a single point of failure (or takeover) as not a good > solution. Of course just having a decentralised solution would > not necessarily be sufficient either, hence the comments I've > made about security issues up front. I don't yet know if a > solution that does all I would want it to do exists. > > As for how to choose, if one solution is unacceptable, then the > network would clearly be using the other. More generally it's > far from the only administratively configured issue in a MANET > - which routing protocol for example (which also applies in the > fixed Internet, nothing new there). I think of autoconfig as being part of a very basic bootstrapping procedure. If any one thing needs to be ubiquitous, it's this. After the device has reached a certain level of configuration and connectivity, it is more possible to negotiate options and report on mismatches. On the other hand, if basic bootstrapping fails, then all you may have to troubleshoot with is a dead device. > > But perhaps, rather than jumping straight in with one, or even > two, approaches, we need people to indicate what they actually > want/need, and whether the proposal in the draft charter, or > an alternative (the latter having the disadvantage of being > quite vague at this point) would give them what they need. Certainly putting a scope around that which must be automatically configured and that which may not would be helpful here. - Mark ******************************************************************** 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. ********************************************************************
- [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF ch… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Zach Shelby
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Zach Shelby
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Security (Was: Re: Call for commen… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Emmanuel Baccelli
- [Autoconf] Security (Was: Re: Call for comments t… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] Security (Was: Re: Call for commen… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Stan Ratliff
- Re: [Autoconf] Security (Was: Re: Call for commen… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] Security (Was: Re: Call for commen… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Zach Shelby
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Holtzer, A.C.G. (Arjen)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Mark Townsley
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Mark Townsley
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Mark Townsley
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Cedric Adjih
- Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCON… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] DHCP and AUTOCONF (was: Call for c… Alexandru Petrescu