Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

["Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Teco,

I'm not a document author, but I have
been answering your questions.

More comments below.

On 2/16/2010 7:41 AM, Teco Boot wrote:

>>> Agreed that with the proposed addressing model, under conditions that
>>> the 'something clever' is not functioning, L3 communication fails for
>>> links between two nodes that have L2 communication?
>>
>> No, I do not agree with the above.
>
> I think you miss something important here.

What?  I agree that L2 neighbors can exchange L3 packets
even with no MANET routing protocol operational.  Do you
disagree??!


> Far more important. It doesn't work when I post during WGLC, and it is
> ignored totally.

I even disagree with this, since I have not
ignored your postings.  What am I, chopped
liver?  [old New Yorker joke...]


>>                 You state that there's something wrong with the
>> document and that you have an "alternative model". That's fair enough,
>> but then the onus is on you to explain what is wrong, lay out your
>> "alternative model", and make sure that in doing so it addresses also
>> the concerns which draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model raise.
>
> I explained what is wrong. And at least one (Carlos) understands
> the issue in the document.

All the defects you have claimed, I have
tried to redress.


> Again, my response during WGLC on this topic:
> Page 4:
>     If L2 communication is enabled between a pair of interfaces, IP
>     packet exchange is enabled regardless of the IP subnet configuration
>     on each of these interfaces.
> This is only possible if the IP stack is aware of the L2 link between the
> pair of interfaces.

That is tautological.  Let's agree to agree on statements
that are tautological.

> One way of establishing this is configure an on-link
> subnet prefix.

That's one way.

> Now we choose not to configure so, and instead run a MANET
> protocol.

This is hardly the only other choice available.

> But this makes IP communication dependent on the MANET protocol,
> which can have a negative effect on managing the network.

Well, so much for _that_ straw man.  It burned so
easily down to the ground.

>                         Think of remote
> management and updates on the MANET protocol.

I'm thinking about that.  What inference am I
supposed to draw?


Regards,
Charlie P.