Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.

[Cedric Adjih <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

Sorry to jump in this thread, but I concur with Christopher, and some 
other participants of the working group.

In my opinion, a decentralized solution to autoconfiguration would be 
preferable.

Having worked on MANET autoconfiguration for the French MoD (with 
specification, implementation, and experiments), centralized protocols 
seem to have more drawbacks for tactical networks, such as resilience to 
nodes taken out of combat as Chris. said, and also miscellaneous 
scenarios of network splitting/merging.

-- Cedric

On 07/05/2010 12:42 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> 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.
>