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.
********************************************************************