Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> Tue, 03 March 2009 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
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 652973A67BD for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:53:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 fG5C2RK4J+EJ for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5056D3A68E8 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:53:15 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=T7JU4G9dzgMDcHsvBQZ+BVIvXabpa5glw63jj9nW9/h8sNiwkLyvhlWc0GeMF07J; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.51.129.145] (helo=[10.166.254.146]) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1LebcS-0005bL-RN; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:53:40 -0500
Message-ID: <49AD98D4.3@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:53:40 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
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> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl> <49A7E58C.2020303@gmail.com> <007201c99903$c4182c80$4c488580$@nl> <49A82E55.10208@gmail.com> <007b01c99911$907facf0$b17f06d0$@nl> <49A8471E.6090506@gmail.com> <009501c99920$92154340$b63fc9c0$@nl> <49A944FF.9000102@gmail.com> <003001c99b2c$a3fcf4a0$ebf6dde0$@nl> <49AD5184.6080300@gmail.com> <000101c99c3c$3121a870$9364f950$@nl> <49AD9760.3080909@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49AD9760.3080909@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52944a24a0e5f2efcb08bc5d7d1c1f9d67350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.51.129.145
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
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: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:53:33 -0000

Hello Alex,

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Teco, the problem is simple: host-based routes are not preferrable.
>

Why is that?

>
> Host-based routes in routers surrounding router X (this is what a /128
> address on a virtual interface on router X implies, be that loopback
> interface or not loopback interface) for a dynamically changing topology
> may lead to too many routes coming up and down, too many specific
> entries in the routing tables, too much dedicated routing messaging, and
> more. 

This magically "forgets" the last 10 years of development
for ad hoc networking protocols.  Do you think this work
was somehow invalid?  Solving the problems you mentioned
was, after all, the entire point of the work.

> Connecting it to the Internet, with host-based routes propagated up and
> down throughout, may risk influencing the routes in the Internet proper.
>  A new host-based route inserted in the routing table of the gateway
> connecting this network to the Internet may propagate throughout the
> entire fixed access system.

That would be the result of somebody making very poor
design and configuration choices on the gateway.

Presumably we can make a specification that would
avoid such bad design choices.  I say this, because I
have myself been involved with design efforts where we
already did it at least two or three times.

Regards,
Charlie P.