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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 22 July 2010 19:29 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 66F123A68C8 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.113
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_72=0.6]
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 uaXDFJzMBsWa for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D793A68CD for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F059400DE; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:29:21 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4C489C10.10702@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:29:20 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <4C2CFADD.3040909@piuha.net> <4C378C29.2040302@oracle.com> <323812CA-4C8B-4469-AA6C-0D65191F2735@sensinode.com> <CA71B05E-5CE0-45ED-8292-398136640025@gmail.com> <AANLkTikS7QyebdP6jOXDIM-cm2vE87VgSWFAq6d6PL0v@mail.gmail.com> <4C46EFC8.6020501@piuha.net> <4C48144D.4040105@gmail.com> <E88A7B1C-7E79-4F0D-9E70-098D649953AB@thomasclausen.org> <4C4815B4.6020907@gmail.com> <2310E7B5-FB7C-4EAE-9640-E2A6957CCF7D@thomasclausen.org> <4C482D52.4010306@gmail.com> <4C485F49.60606@gmail.com> <E2A2909E-5BFF-4FFF-A520-1DF312F3BBF9@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <E2A2909E-5BFF-4FFF-A520-1DF312F3BBF9@inf-net.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100722-1, 22/07/2010), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: autoconf@ietf.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: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:29:12 -0000

Le 22/07/2010 20:05, Teco Boot a écrit :
> Op 22 jul 2010, om 17:10 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>>> There is a draft and I would like to present it during the next
>>> WG meeting - that could show that I do capture that we talk
>>> about multi-hop networks.
>>
>> I have been asked privately about the draft in question - here it
>> is:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-00
>>
>>
>>
"Router Advertisements for Routing between Moving Networks"
>>
>> I believe it adapted to AUTOCONF WG discussion as well, but not
>> sure whether Chairs accept that I present it.
>>
>> I am scheduled to present it in MEXT WG too, Monday, 16h15
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/mext.txt
>
> Isn't this draft about routing?

YEs... depends how one interprets 'routing'.  The prefixes received in
the RA are installed in the routing table - that sounds as routing. 
However, the use of link-local addresses in order to exchange RAs is 
less about routing and more about addressing model.

> So I doubt on relation with Autoconf.

I have a similar doubt too... however the RA-based routing uses
link-local addresses, and the deployment is a typical multi-hop mobile
wireless network.  Why would AUTOCONF addressing model forbid them?

> If it described an interesting addressing model for MANETs, I support
> a small slot for a presentation. But after a quick look, I didn't see
> such.

Well, this figure from the draft depicts an addressing model:
>                            egress|              |egress
>              ----     ----    ----              ----     ----    ----
>             | LFN|   |LFN |  | MR |            | MR |   |LFN |  |LFN |
>              ----     ----    ----              ----     ----    ----
>                |        | ingress|              |ingress   |      |
>               ---------------------             ---------------------
>                    2001:1::/24                       2001:2::/24

In addition, this text from the same draft needs link-local addresses on 
the egress interfaces:
>    o  When receiving the special RA from another MR, a MR parses the
>       packet for the link-local address of the sending MR, for the MNP
>       sent by that MR and for the lifetime.  It then installs the
>       corresponding entry into the data structure mentioned earlier.

These messages from the draft need to be exchanged by using link-local 
addresses:
>                  MR1                MR2                MR3
>                      |                  |                  |
>                      | MLD REPORT (LL1) |                  |
>                      |----------------->|----------------->|multicast
>                      |                  |MLD REPORT (LL3)  |
>                      |<-----------------|<-----------------|
>                      |               MLD|REPORT (LL2)      |
>                      |<-----------------|----------------->|
>                      |                  |                  |
>                      |    Special RA    |                  |
>                      |----------------->|----------------->|
>                      |   (MNP1-LL1)     |                  |
>                      |                  |    Special RA    |
>                      |<-----------------|<-----------------|
>                      |                  |   (MNP3-LL3)     |
>                      |                  |                  |
>                      |           Special|RA                |
>                      |<-----------------|----------------->|


[...]

> I'm opposed to single prefix sharing on multiple mobile networks
> (the 2001:00xx/24 example). I guess it is a flaw.

WEll, if it were a single prefix shared then yes, it would have been a
flaw, I agree with you. But there actually two different prefixes in
that figure: 2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24.

Thanks for the remark, I am going to scan the draft make sure that there
is no single prefix sharing on multiple mobile networks.

I can say that in my implementation there is no single prefix sharing
across multiple mobile networks.

Alex

>
> Teco
>
>