Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 23 July 2010 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 BB44E3A697A for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.083
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.083 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.166, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 KdXekTGt-59P for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214E23A6B04 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o6N7h3FO004338 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:43:03 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o6N7h3rW030650; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:43:03 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o6N7h2N4007701; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:43:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4C494806.5060609@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:43:02 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FAC3@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C4899AD.4030808@gmail.com> <201007230723.58638.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
In-Reply-To: <201007230723.58638.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: 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: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:42:53 -0000

Le 23/07/2010 07:23, Henning Rogge a écrit :
> On Thu July 22 2010 21:19:09 Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> Le 22/07/2010 17:41, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit :
>>> And then those link local addresses are visible beyond their
>>> local link.
>>
>> No, my point is not understood.  The link-local addresses are not
>> visible beyond their local link.
>>
>> When the MRs in LFN--MR--MR--MR--LFN use their link-local
>> addresses these are not visible beyond their respective local
>> link.
>
> You just have shown that you don't understand what a wireless MANET
> (with multihop links, without most people would not consider it a
> MANET) is.

Ulrich, I do make efforts to understand what you understand.  PArt of
this effort is to refrain the temptation of claiming you don't 
understand what I don't understand.

> if each of the MRs use a wireless interface, the linklocals WILL BE
> VISIBLE outside their direct link.

Well, the link local addresses will not be visible outside their direct
link, because the different links are on different ESSIDs and moreover
on different channels.  Using wireshark on IP packets on these different
links shows that the link local addressess are not visible from one link
to another.

When you say visible - what do you mean?  I mean "not visible" to the IP
stack.

> There is no way to prevent this.

YEs there is - use different ESSIDs and, for more insurance, use
different channels and different keys.  That is for WiFi.  For other
technologies (3G+, LTE, Bluetooth) there are other link layer means such
as pdp context and more.

> Because multiple links share interfaces in a non-transitive manner

Well yes, at link layer level.  But link layers have their protocols
which help build understandable links to the IP stack.

> (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation).

Uh?

Alex

>
> Henning Rogge
>