Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 04 March 2009 17:19 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 C90623A6B1A for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:19:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, 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 fg+Fifev2J2X for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:19:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr (smtp4-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DEE23A6AA2 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:19:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D354C81A9; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:20:13 +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 3C5AC4C81B4; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:20:10 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <49AEB846.5020103@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:20:06 +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$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <000c01c99ce9$e09bf500$a1d3df00$@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 17:19:52 -0000

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).

I can't build a network without knowing these specifications
in detail; its IP addressing architecture is impossible to agree on.

Alex

> 
> Thanks, Teco
> 
> |-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- |Van: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] Namens |Alexandru Petrescu 
> |Verzonden: woensdag 4 maart 2009 16:03 |Aan: Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
>  |CC: autoconf@ietf.org |Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf
> addressing model | |Stan Ratliff (sratliff) a écrit : |[...] |> We've
> already been over the 25m subnet thing. It's a non-starter. |>
> Limiting movement, or mandating that a DHCP or DNS server is always 
> |> on and available is also a non-starter. 25m subnets with "always
> on" |> DNS/DHCP servers sounds to me like a few guys gathering
> together to |> play "Doom" at their local coffee shop. I deploy MANET
> networks for |> governmental applications. Think disaster recovery,
> like after |> Hurricane Katrina, or the last round of wildfires in
> California. Do |> you think it appropriate to tell the firefighters
> "you can't let the |> trucks get more than 25m apart, or your network
> breaks"? Or, "if your |>  DNS server should fail, just forget what
> you're doing and go home"? | |No, I don't think it appropriate. | 
> |But I didn't mean to imply AUTOCONF networks span only 25meter range
> - |they could be made of several such single subnets. | |> So, once
> again, no -- 25m subnets don't make sense and won't work in |> the
> environments where I'm deploying networks. Placing this type of |>
> limitation on AUTOCONF will, IMO, make the work output useless. | 
> |How about a unit being a 25m subnet containing exposed terminals;
> and a |network growing as a chain of such units, linked by routers.
> Would this |make more sense? | |The disaster relief scenarios you
> describe also have certain limits of |movements.  For example: 
> |-firefighter never gets very far away from truck. |-among all
> intervening trucks only some are designated as special, for |
> example command and control. |-etc. | |Expressing this inherent
> structure in terms of subnet structure can be |very useful. | |Alex |
>  |> |> Stan |> |> |>>> Watching your DNS server [(m) or not!] move
> from place to |>> place in an |>>> ad hoc network, sometimes finding
> itself partitioned from your |>>> favorite node, could be an exciting
> and enlightening adventure. |>> I agree we could find very dynamic
> ways of Routers and Hosts of an |>> ad-hoc network moving in and out
> such that subnet structure is not |>> maintained, and thus servers
> not being reachable.  But unless we |>> describe these movements we
> can't deal with them. |>> |>>>>> Who said we had to avoid size
> limits? |>>>> Well we don't have size limits in the charter proposal,
> we |>> don't have |>>>> agreement on '25m IPv6 subnets', we don't
> have limits on |>> the types of |>>>> the link layers involved. |>>>
> If you are talking about an ad hoc network with 25,000,000 |>>>
> subnets, then I am basically not on the same page.  And not in |>>>
> the |>> same decade. |>> |>> Sorry I meant 25meters not millions.  A
> '25m IPv6 subnet' would be |>> a wireless coverage area of radius
> 25meter, without obstacles, and |>> within which there are only
> exposed terminals, fully transitive and |>>  symmetric
> communications. |>> |>> Would you agree such a subnet makes sense?
> Does not make sense? |>> |>>>> However, your question seems to imply
> you think there may be a |>>>>  limit: AUTOCONF network is small
> enough to accommodate |>>>> host-based routes.  Is it this? |>>> I
> think the network has to accomodate the routes needed for |>>>
> connectivity to destinations within the network. |>>> |>>> Again,
> just saying "subnet" doesn't buy even one gram of |>>> additional
> scalability.  You need more. |>>> |>>> You need a procedure for
> enabling aggregation. Such a |>> procedure is not |>>> always
> available. |>> If by aggregation is meant addressing aggregation (as
> Teco also |>> proposes a /60 prefix assigned to several Routers
> themselves |>> assigning /64 prefixes to their links) then I think we
> should not |>> strive to respect aggregation.  Address aggregation
> wouldn't make |>> sense if we talk host-based routes either. |>> 
> |>>>>> Well, to me it did sound very negative.  Moreover, I think it 
> |>>>>>  is just fine to pass around subnet prefixes, if you have 
> |>>>>> subnets. |>>>> Charles, yes - the subnets are there first,
> before IP. |>> Once the link |>>>> is up the subnet is the set of
> nodes on it.  In this sense |>> I agree it |>>>> is just fine to pass
> subnet prefixes around. |>>> This is wrong*2.   First, there is IP,
> which fixes the |>> address format |>>> and address modes.  Then
> there are subnets. Some people |>> here probably |>>> remember when
> the word "subnet" starting coming into more |>> active use. |>>> |>>>
> Second, just because nodes are reachable over the air as |>>>
> neighbors, does not imply they are on the same IP subnet.  Trying 
> |>>>  to maintain otherwise leads to madness. |>>> |>>> Surely you
> will agree.  A subnet is an abstraction to support |>>> more
> efficient routing.  It is not a wire or a piece of plastic |>>> or a
> contiguous region of space. |>> I can live with that. |>> |>>
> However, I think the simplest cases we have to deal with have very 
> |>> simple subnet structure that we should take advantage of. |>> |>>
> Alex |>> |>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf
> mailing |>> list Autoconf@ietf.org |>>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf |>> |> | | 
> |_______________________________________________ |Autoconf mailing
> list |Autoconf@ietf.org 
> |https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> 
>