Re: [Autoconf] Another addressing model for AUTOCONF

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

Alex,

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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.


2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24 are short forms for
2001:0001::/24 and 2001:0002::/24
(as defined in rfc2373)

So, I have to agree with Teco.  Maybe you meant 2001:100::/24 and 2001:200::/24?

Ulrich

>
>> 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.
>
>
>> And I dislike the address spoofing mode, suggested in slide 4.
>> So it so +1 on others remarks.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf