Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 04 March 2009 23:45 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 413843A684E for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:45:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 uRYUEMt49kq8 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr (smtp4-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBB83A6988 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFAC4C8020; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:45:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bur91-3-82-239-213-32.fbx.proxad.net [82.239.213.32]) by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B8A4C808E; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:45:26 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <49AF1292.3050208@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:45:22 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
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> <49AD98D4.3@earthlink.net><49AD9EA8.6040803@gmail.com> <49ADA17B.9040600@earthlink.net><49ADAF7C.1050509@gmail.com> <49ADB9FB.6050600@earthlink.net> <49AE3A3A.5000305@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407B5D783@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49AE9827.5090309@gmail.com> <000c01c99ce9$e09bf500$a1d3df00$@nl> <49AEB846.5020103@gmail.com> <000101c99d00$664c7f60$32e57e20$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <000101c99d00$664c7f60$32e57e20$@nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090303-2, 04/03/2009), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
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: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:45:08 -0000

Teco Boot a écrit :
> Inline.
> 
> |-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> |Van: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
> |Verzonden: woensdag 4 maart 2009 18:20
> |Aan: Teco Boot
> |CC: 'Alexandru Petrescu'; 'Stan Ratliff (sratliff)'; autoconf@ietf.org
> |Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
> |
> |Teco Boot a écrit :
> |> Alex,
> |>
> |> It happen to be I am working on the customer side, not the equipment
> |> vendor / supplier side. I can say your limitations for 25meter and a
> |> requirement for relay nodes with multiple interfaces are far, far
> |> from acceptable. I go for what Stan says. Sorry, I cannot go into
> |> details on what the specs are. I am not in the position to say you,
> |> this is not the medium to publish and moreover, there is no need for
> |> these details. We in IETF never went in this before (e.g. there is no
> |> range limitation for ICMP messages).
> |
> |I meant to say to explicitely consider the characteristics of the
> |link-layers you consider for AUTOCONF ad-hoc networks.  These all have
> |specifications about their physical lengths (for wired), for dbm
> |powerlevels and range in meters (wireless).
> 
> The problem with this is that it is of almost no use for an ad hoc network.
> Ad hoc means "to this", "for this purpose". It refers to dealing with
> special situations as they occur rather than functions that are repeated on
> a regular basis. (http://www.answers.com/topic/ad-hoc). Or "created on the
> spur of the moment, impromptu" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hoc).

Along these lines, an interpretation of 'ad-hoc' is a happening which 
hasn't been planned, spontaneous, etc.  This would contradict the goal 
of planning an addressing architecture for it, unless the limits of 
movement and the characteristics of the underlying link-layers are noted.

Alex