Re: [Autoconf] new charter

HyungJin Lim <dream.hjlim@gmail.com> Fri, 27 February 2009 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dream.hjlim@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 105773A690A for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=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 Nzxbft3eFLEh for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788673A68D2 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 5so1234758ywh.49 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:01:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pAnU8/wH2z0Hig3tPXNUh6Z8SEOqqv68Oa+Cw5Tl95I=; b=uU90zya0eJXpgSs/mnd6xoBZ6Zk+EYJdTPO7Cbv7G8O5AWoDTcx8X679YSAXqEHnZV Bc09DWMtb6NkFjQTle6JsF6V1ooFGhm7zitWzf1zWmbsvkdqmcCS8kaI0H4elTEy+HMh eAXGmpeS7jVPpgvQZrlMvS48AQFeBD2BcpgRk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=CxLkk8vZwLJ+0/Y01fVavqOIzdwZPAu3FQ2tnanWiH0B5unz+0KEkJ9XowZiKyX/mc 31KdU7fJyN9hS2LCa/LKD4/bWmADG9NIWAkFblRhVW3248W6TJ4V9HGP0BKTpFUSMdYZ Yu2W2UQYnMzv6omUaC9ymBVX4sORwdKA4XLAM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.110.47.9 with SMTP id u9mr3255827tiu.39.1235721670805; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:01:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1235719474.4612.3.camel@localhost>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <7E8A76F7-2CE0-463A-8EE8-8877C46B4715@gmail.com> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <7e8d02d40902261737n1c21b136hd575b8afa8702188@mail.gmail.com> <1235719474.4612.3.camel@localhost>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:01:10 +0900
Message-ID: <7e8d02d40902270001t7cbd103dife3f70cb6c2f23e0@mail.gmail.com>
From: HyungJin Lim <dream.hjlim@gmail.com>
To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e65206023acb1f0463e1dffe
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
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: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:00:52 -0000

Hi Carlos,

See inline...

2009/2/27 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>

> Hi Hyung-Jin,
>
>        Answer inline below...
>
> El vie, 27-02-2009 a las 10:37 +0900, HyungJin Lim escribió:
>  > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > This is Hyung-Jin, Lim
> >
> > I have a question.
> > See the inline....
> >
> >
> > 2009/2/27 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
> >         Hi Alex:
> >
> >                One question below.
> >
> >         El jue, 26-02-2009 a las 20:44 +0100, Alexandru Petrescu
> >         escribió:
> >         > Sorry, I made an error indeed putting same prefix.  How
> >         about this
> >         > updated picture with the prefixes being distinct:
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >          -----  wifi "adhoc1"  ------  wifi "adhoc2"  -----
> >         >         |Host1|---------------|Router|---------------|Host2|
> >         >          ----- LL1         LL2 ------ LL3        LL4  -----
> >         >                G1                                G4
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >         "adhoc1" and "adhoc2": 802.11 ESSIDs in "ad-hoc"
> >         mode.
> >         >                                Each is an IPv6 subnet.
> >         >         LL1...4: IPv6 link-local addresses.
> >         >                  Self-formed according to rfc2464.
> >         >         G1, G4:  IPv6 global addresses, for example
> >         >                  2001:db8:1::1/64 and
> >         >                  2001:db8:2::4/64
> >         >                  Manually assigned, or pre-configured with
> >         SNMP
> >         >                  or formed according to stateless autoconf
> >         rfc4862;
> >         >                  the prefixes are advertised by Router in
> >         RAs.
> >         >
> >
> >
> >         Does this model only apply to Host-Router-Host scenarios? I
> >         mean, does
> >         this model apply for Router-Router-Router scenarios? I fully
> >         agree the
> >         model fits the first scenario, but I don't for the second,
> >         since
> >         routers' mobility within the ad-hoc network would force them
> >         to change
> >         prefixes often, I guess. For those scenarios it might be
> >         better to think
> >         of addressing models in which MANET routers are configured
> >         with /128
> >         (or /32 for IPv4) addresses, so they don't need to change
> >         their
> >         addresses as a result of link changes.
> >
> > Does AUTOCONF not consider "ad-hoc network to Internet" scenario ?
> > If so, I agree your comment.
> > But if not, your pointing out is not reasonable I think.
> > In case of this situation, MANET routers may need to change their
> > addresses for connectivity/packet forwarding/packet routing to
> > Internet.
>
> I think AUTOCONF considers connection to Internet, but even in that
> case, I think my comment still holds. It's true that in a connected
> scenario, the addressing depends on the infrastructure the MANET is
> attached to,


 Right !


> but this doesn't necessarily imply that inner nodes have to
> change their addresses when move within the same MANET.


In here, I think there are many assumptions and requirements.
We should identify some aspects in relation to address configuration in
MANET and AUTOCONF.

Best regards,
Hyung-Jin, Lim

>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Carlos
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Hyung-Jin Lim
> >
> >
> >
> >         Kind Regards,
> >
> >         Carlos
> >
> >         --
> >
> >          Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
> >          GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
> >         ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >          WEEDEV 2009: 2nd Workshop on Experimental Evaluation and
> >                Deployment Experiences on Vehicular networks
> >                          http://www.weedev.org/
> >         ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Autoconf mailing list
> >         Autoconf@ietf.org
> >         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> >
> >
> --
>   Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
>  GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  WEEDEV 2009: 2nd Workshop on Experimental Evaluation and
>        Deployment Experiences on Vehicular networks
>                  http://www.weedev.org/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>