Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

Alexandru Petrescu <> Wed, 04 March 2009 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432E128C377 for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:02:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3IHNsit+5n2J for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A783A67C0 for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:02:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id n24F1HCj001648; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:01:17 +0100
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n24F33Jk013115; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:03:03 +0100 (envelope-from
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id n24F33kq026938; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:03:03 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:03:03 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <>
References: <> <> <><000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <><1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl><> <007201c99903$c4182c80$4c488580$@nl><> <007b01c99911$907facf0$b17f06d0$@nl><> <009501c99920$92154340$b63fc9c0$@nl><> <003001c99b2c$a3fcf4a0$ebf6dde0$@nl><> <000101c99c3c$3121a870$9364f950$@nl><> <><> <><> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
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: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:02:44 -0000

Stan Ratliff (sratliff) a écrit :
> We've already been over the 25m subnet thing. It's a non-starter. 
> Limiting movement, or mandating that a DHCP or DNS server is always 
> on and available is also a non-starter. 25m subnets with "always on" 
> DNS/DHCP servers sounds to me like a few guys gathering together to 
> play "Doom" at their local coffee shop. I deploy MANET networks for 
> governmental applications. Think disaster recovery, like after 
> Hurricane Katrina, or the last round of wildfires in California. Do 
> you think it appropriate to tell the firefighters "you can't let the 
> trucks get more than 25m apart, or your network breaks"? Or, "if your
>  DNS server should fail, just forget what you're doing and go home"?

No, I don't think it appropriate.

But I didn't mean to imply AUTOCONF networks span only 25meter range - 
they could be made of several such single subnets.

> So, once again, no -- 25m subnets don't make sense and won't work in 
> the environments where I'm deploying networks. Placing this type of 
> limitation on AUTOCONF will, IMO, make the work output useless.

How about a unit being a 25m subnet containing exposed terminals; and a
network growing as a chain of such units, linked by routers.  Would this
make more sense?

The disaster relief scenarios you describe also have certain limits of 
movements.  For example:
-firefighter never gets very far away from truck.
-among all intervening trucks only some are designated as special, for
  example command and control.

Expressing this inherent structure in terms of subnet structure can be 
very useful.


> Stan
>>> Watching your DNS server [(m) or not!] move from place to
>> place in an
>>> ad hoc network, sometimes finding itself partitioned from your 
>>> favorite node, could be an exciting and enlightening adventure.
>> I agree we could find very dynamic ways of Routers and Hosts of an 
>> ad-hoc network moving in and out such that subnet structure is not 
>> maintained, and thus servers not being reachable.  But unless we 
>> describe these movements we can't deal with them.
>>>>> Who said we had to avoid size limits?
>>>> Well we don't have size limits in the charter proposal, we
>> don't have
>>>> agreement on '25m IPv6 subnets', we don't have limits on
>> the types of
>>>> the link layers involved.
>>> If you are talking about an ad hoc network with 25,000,000 
>>> subnets, then I am basically not on the same page.  And not in 
>>> the
>> same decade.
>> Sorry I meant 25meters not millions.  A '25m IPv6 subnet' would be 
>> a wireless coverage area of radius 25meter, without obstacles, and 
>> within which there are only exposed terminals, fully transitive and
>>  symmetric communications.
>> Would you agree such a subnet makes sense?  Does not make sense?
>>>> However, your question seems to imply you think there may be a
>>>>  limit: AUTOCONF network is small enough to accommodate 
>>>> host-based routes.  Is it this?
>>> I think the network has to accomodate the routes needed for 
>>> connectivity to destinations within the network.
>>> Again, just saying "subnet" doesn't buy even one gram of 
>>> additional scalability.  You need more.
>>> You need a procedure for enabling aggregation. Such a
>> procedure is not
>>> always available.
>> If by aggregation is meant addressing aggregation (as Teco also 
>> proposes a /60 prefix assigned to several Routers themselves 
>> assigning /64 prefixes to their links) then I think we should not 
>> strive to respect aggregation.  Address aggregation wouldn't make 
>> sense if we talk host-based routes either.
>>>>> Well, to me it did sound very negative.  Moreover, I think it
>>>>>  is just fine to pass around subnet prefixes, if you have 
>>>>> subnets.
>>>> Charles, yes - the subnets are there first, before IP.
>> Once the link
>>>> is up the subnet is the set of nodes on it.  In this sense
>> I agree it
>>>> is just fine to pass subnet prefixes around.
>>> This is wrong*2.   First, there is IP, which fixes the
>> address format
>>> and address modes.  Then there are subnets. Some people
>> here probably
>>> remember when the word "subnet" starting coming into more
>> active use.
>>> Second, just because nodes are reachable over the air as 
>>> neighbors, does not imply they are on the same IP subnet.  Trying
>>>  to maintain otherwise leads to madness.
>>> Surely you will agree.  A subnet is an abstraction to support 
>>> more efficient routing.  It is not a wire or a piece of plastic 
>>> or a contiguous region of space.
>> I can live with that.
>> However, I think the simplest cases we have to deal with have very 
>> simple subnet structure that we should take advantage of.
>> Alex
>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing 
>> list