Re: [Autoconf] new charter

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 27 February 2009 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 9699328C0F8 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:00:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.768
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
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 lK9EUwX5tId0 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:00:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtpo-eml02.kpnxchange.com (cpsmtpo-eml02.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.151]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FECD28C42C for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:00:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml110.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.168.110]) by cpsmtpo-eml02.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:00:35 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml110.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:00:34 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: "'Rex Buddenberg'" <budden@nps.navy.mil>
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><49A7BB89.5040807@gmail.com> <003901c998cb$42b71e90$c8255bb0$@nl><49A7E97A.2010503@gmail.com> <006801c998fd$06c5bd60$14513820$@nl> <49A8272D.2060400@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C48@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49A83172.70105@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C70@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49A84285.5030103@nps.navy.mil>
In-Reply-To: <49A84285.5030103@nps.navy.mil>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:00:34 +0100
Message-ID: <007f01c99916$0d20bf70$27623e50$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmZE7BqNK1PwWvqSYeoCV++h7dx5QAAavPQ
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 20:00:34.0951 (UTC) FILETIME=[0D603970:01C99916]
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 20:00:26 -0000

|-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|Van: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] Namens
|Rex Buddenberg
|Verzonden: vrijdag 27 februari 2009 20:44
|Aan: Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
|CC: autoconf@ietf.org
|Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
|
|Stan,
|
|The difference is not geo footprint (you got that right).  Rather the
|difference is between LAN (at fringe of network) and WAN (in the
|interior).  A WAN will always be at least one router away from end
|systems.

I am not sure on this. 
In the disconnected multi-hop MANET, the WAN is NOT available.

I agree in having a layered approach, e.g. edge network (or LAN) and
backbone (or WAN).


|While we're at it, references to SSIDs is not proper -- that's
|802.11-specific.

Yes. But 802.11 IBSS is often used as a reference for MANETs (cheap
equipment?).


Teco.


|Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:
|>
|>
|>
|>> -----Original Message-----
|>> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
|>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:31 PM
|>> To: Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
|>> Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; Teco Boot; autoconf@ietf.org
|>> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
|>>
|>> Stan Ratliff (sratliff) a écrit :
|>>
|>>>> Well I agree the physical laws are so.  But I disagree to
|>>>>
|>> have 25km
|>>
|>>>> MANETs in the Charter.  I agree with "25m IPv6 subnets",
|>>>>
|>> if they were
|>>
|>>>> explicitely stated so in the charter.
|>>>>
|>>>> Alex
|>>>>
|>>>>
|>>> And I'll have to disagree with the "25m subnets". I regularly deal
|>>> with line-of-sight radio links that are in excess of 25km. We can't
|>>> limit ourselves to short-range technologies (e.g.
|>>>
|>> Commercial 802.11,
|>>
|>>> Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc). I don't believe a distance should be
|>>> explicitly stated in the charter, rather, some verbiage that talks
|>>> about "radio neighbors in range" should be sufficient.
|>>>
|>> I wouldn't disagree with a Charter mentioning we deal with
|>> 25m IPv6 subnets and with 30.000km IPv6 subnets, and here are
|>> the two practical methods to put addresses on these nodes.
|>>
|>> But I would disagree with a Charter saying we deal with all
|>> wireless links ranging from personal area to sattellite and
|>> everything in between
|>>   and the generic addressing model is the following...
|>>
|>> Alex
|>>
|>>
|>
|>
|> Hmmm, that's a problem. Because I don't see a difference in a 3m
|subnet using Bluetooth, and a 35,000km "subnet" using a satellite with
|IP routing on board. I think the charter needs to solve the problem for
|both of those, because I believe the distance of the link shouldn't be a
|factor.
|>
|> Regards,
|> Stan
|>
|>
|>
|>>
|> _______________________________________________
|> Autoconf mailing list
|> Autoconf@ietf.org
|> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
|>
|>
|
|--
|Rex Buddenberg
|Senior Lecturer
|Naval Postgraduate School
|Monterey, Ca 93943
|831/656-3576
|
|_______________________________________________
|Autoconf mailing list
|Autoconf@ietf.org
|https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf