Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)

Hi, Alex,

Inline...

2009/3/5 Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>

> Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
>
> HyungJin Lim a écrit :
>>
>>> I'm sorry for correction about the following comment and duplicate
>>> comments.
>>> My first language is not English.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *HyungJin Lim* <dream.hjlim@gmail.com <mailto:
>>> dream.hjlim@gmail.com>>
>>> Date: 2009/3/5
>>> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network
>>> Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
>>> To: iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>
>>> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>,
>>> alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> Inline...
>>>
>>> 2009/3/5 IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org <mailto:
>>> iesg-secretary@ietf.org>>
>>>
>>>    A modified charter has been submitted for the Ad-Hoc Network
>>>    Autoconfiguration working group in the Internet Area of the IETF.  The
>>>    IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The modified charter is
>>>    provided below for informational purposes only.  Please send your
>>>    comments
>>>    to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>) by
>>>    Wednesday, March 11, 2009.
>>>
>>>    Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
>>>    -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>    Last Modified: 2009-02-18
>>>
>>>    Current Status: Active Working Group
>>>
>>>    Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf
>>>    <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf>
>>>
>>>    Chair(s):
>>>    Ryuji Wakikawa [ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com>]
>>>    Thomas Clausen [T.Clausen@computer.org <mailto:T.Clausen@computer.org
>>> >]
>>>
>>>    Internet Area Director(s):
>>>    Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>]
>>>    Mark Townsley [townsley@cisco.com <mailto:townsley@cisco.com>]
>>>
>>>    Internet Area Advisor:
>>>    Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>]
>>>
>>>    Mailing Lists:
>>>    General Discussion: autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
>>>    To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>>    Archive:
>>>    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html
>>>
>>>    Description of Working Group:
>>>
>>>    In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
>>>    2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local
>>> addresses
>>>    that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may also need to
>>>    configure globally routable addresses, in order to communicate with
>>>    devices on the Internet. From the IP layer perspective, an ad hoc
>>>    network presents itself as a L3 multi-hop network formed over a
>>>    collection of links.
>>>
>>>  In here, I have a question !
>>> What's meaning of globally routable addresses ?
>>>
>>
>> I think it's a commonly agreed term, in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture
>>  RFC.
>>
>> I think globally routable addresses should include topologically correct
>>> address and topologically incorrect address.
>>>
>>
>> Correct relative to what?
>>
>> The reason I address this is that the NEMO basic support should configure
>>> topologically incorrect address in nested NEMO.
>>>
>>
>> I agree: addresses configured within a nested NEMO moving network are
>> probably topologically incorrect with respect to the CoA and subnet assigned
>> to the top-level Mobile Router egress interface of a parent NEMO moving
>> network.
>>
>> But topologically incorrect address is also globally routable addresses if
>>> it a packet forwarding mechanism (e.g., tunneling) is supported, not packet
>>> routing(e.g. OLSR, DYMO, etc.).
>>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>    The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the addressing model
>>>    for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure their
>>>    addresses. It is required that such models do not cause problems for
>>> ad
>>>    hoc-unaware parts of the system, such as standard applications running
>>>    on an ad hoc node or regular Internet nodes attached to the ad hoc
>>>    nodes. This group's effort may include the development of new protocol
>>>    mechanisms, should the existing IP autoconfiguration mechanisms be
>>> found
>>>    inadequate. However, the first task of the working group is to
>>> describe
>>>    one practical addressing model for ad hoc networks.
>>>
>>>  What's meaning of practical addressing model ?
>>> *Although we already discussed this issue in MANEMO BoF,* *we should
>>> *consider practical scenarios for practical addressing model in real world I
>>> think.
>>> The only simplest scenario *can not* satisfy requirements and other
>>> aspects in more complex scenario which include Internet connectivity, nested
>>> pattern, group mobility, wireless coverage, and so on.
>>>  I would like suggest to define some requirements for practical
>>> scenarios.
>>> Then, the simplest scenario also can be considered as a base  topic of
>>> them I think.
>>>
>>
>> I tend to agree with the approach
>>
>> I'm just afraid that defining new requirements may lengthen the process of
>> coming up with a practical addressing model.  I think the word practical is
>> there to just mean that in practice many of us may write an addressing model
>> in a very straightforward manner, which would work in each one's particular
>> case.
>>
>> Maybe we could find the practical and easiest simplest most convenient way
>> of a common denominator addressing models for some very simple dynamic
>> networks.
>>
>

 If the simplest scenario can cover various aspects from some scenarios
including more complex situations, it's OK.

> But yes, I agree with you on the necessity to come up with the simplest
> scenario as a base topic for more complex.

       In some scenarios Teco addressed in previous comment, we can
meet situations that the simplest scenario do not cover.
     How about considering from the simples scenario to meaningful complex
scenario.
     After defining their requirements such as address configuration models,
some impacts from them, possible situation we will meet due to
wireless coverage, some impacts from group mobility pattern and dynamic
topology change,  we can suggest the addressing model for ad hoc
networks and for future Internet I think.

The following URL shows a representative scenario we can meet for example.

We already have discussed about the practical scenario several times in
NEMO. and MANEMO. This is not a new issue but we did not define this I
think.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wakikawa-manemoarch-00

Is it right that MANET includes MANEMO ?

Hyung-Jin, Lim

>
>
> Alex
>
>
>