Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Tue, 31 August 2010 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B193A6783 for <>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.364
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.365, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JB3Eb-aj0VMr for <>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088643A67E4 for <>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,297,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="84617104"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 09:40:42 +0100
Received: from glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o7V8ef4I026564; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:40:41 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([]) by glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:40:41 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:40:04 +0100
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03651D67@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
Thread-Index: ActGF4OVrSsKmK3fShO+yRM2i/vH0gC0EKtA
References: <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609170@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D036094AB@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609914@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609AE8@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609C8A@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2010 08:40:41.0297 (UTC) FILETIME=[31A91C10:01CB48E8]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:40:13 -0000

Can you outline such a case. It's not the simple use of Mobile IP
noted below as for that router prefix autoconfiguration is sufficient.

Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Communications and Networks Capability
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: Charles E. Perkins [] 
Sent: 27 August 2010 19:42
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for

                    *** 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.

Hello Chris,

On 8/27/2010 5:27 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> There's a key question as to how much functionality.

This is an important point.  The functionality needed by
a host in order to connect to network depends on the
functionality provided by the router that offers the
netwok prefix.

> If a node just has a single point of attachment to an unchanging
> router, then router prefix autoconf is sufficient, as the host
> node can just get an address from its router. If we extend that
> so that it can now move, and use Mobile IP with its home location
> being the router it first attached to, ditto.


> The question is what is the case where the host node is doing
> something useful, but can't just get an address delegated to
> it by an autoconfed router?
> (I am not saying I don't think there is such a case. I'm just
> saying I haven't seen it - quite a different thing.)

Well, there are such cases, and they should be allowed.

Charlie P.

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.