Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Joe Macker" <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil> Thu, 05 March 2009 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>
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 A5A9928C0DD for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 08:55:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 pqo6vWaixb0p for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 08:55:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC063A6A41 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 08:55:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id n25Gtdic029873; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:55:40 -0500
Received: (from sextant [132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id M2009030511554022790 ; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:55:40 -0500
From: "Joe Macker" <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>
To: "'Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)'" <sratliff@cisco.com>, "'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> <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> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407B5D803@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49AEBA6D.7030903@gmail.com> <7FB7EE! 0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC 76407B5DB1F@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407B5DB1F@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:55:34 -0500
Message-ID: <001a01c99db3$33407960$99c16c20$@macker@nrl.navy.mil>
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: Acmc7tiiUEclImn0SFW37TI7C6NxiAAHwq4gAClNdZA=
Content-Language: en-us
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:55:22 -0000

Ditto what Stan says... for what its worth.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:35 PM
> To: Alexandru Petrescu
> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:29 PM
> > To: Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
> > Cc: Charles E. Perkins; autoconf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
> >
> > Stan Ratliff (sratliff) a écrit :
> > > First off, you *can't* arbitrarily limit subnets to 25m. 25m from
> > > what? The center?
> >
> > Yes, an area of 25meters with a wifi access point in the center.
> 
> *By definition*, what you describe is not a MANET. As you state, that's just a WiFi access point. That's
> already solved -- 802.11 clients can roam from access point to access point. But again, this should not be
> an 802.11-centric discussion.
> 
> >
> > > And, how do you designate the center? Do you constantly
> > re-calculate
> > > the center based on movement?
> >
> > No, not constantly re-computed.  But have a fixed view at a
> > point in time.  Saying everything varies isn't helpful either.
> >
> 
> It may not be helpful, but it's reality. You can't rely on a fixed view of a dynamic network; again, by
> definition, there's movement in a MANET. Links come and go, and link quality varies from moment to moment.
> 
> 
> > > Also, from a radio perspective, how do you tell how far
> > apart you are
> > > in the first place? Do you suppose that all radios have
> > GPS? That's a
> > > non-starter, because GPS signals aren't always available.
> >
> > No I didn't suppose GPS is available on each device, it
> > wouldn't work well under foliage.  Just a rough evaluation of
> > a specific link-layer radio range, correspondign to widely
> > used networks.
> >
> > > And what about the wired MANET case brought up by Christopher
> > > Dearlove? Should we limit the cable runs?
> >
> > YEs, certainly.  All cabled link-layers have specific
> > limitations on their lengths: 2m USB, 50m Ethernet Category6
> > (IIRC) and so on.
> >
> > > I could understand (but
> > > wouldn't really like) the notion of limiting the discussion
> > to links
> > > that are transitive; but placing some arbitrary distance
> > limit that's
> > > based on 802.11 just doesn't cut it for me.
> >
> > 802.11 is being used widely, no reason to ignore.
> 
> I'm not advocating we "ignore" 802.11, or any other L2 technology, for that matter. I'm advocating that we
> remain Layer 2 agnostic. As Teco mentioned in another email, there are people in this WG that don't deploy
> MANET networks based on 802.11, or 802.16, or 802.15.4.
> 
> >
> > I'd happily accept to add another specific limitation, from
> > the link-layer of your choice.  And be speecifically
> > addressing these two link layers.  And maybe three.  No more
> > than three.
> >
> > I find addressing them all to be difficult for me.
> 
> I don't understand why the Layer 3 addressing scheme needs to be predicated on a specific Layer 2
> technology, or set of technologies. The Layer 3 addressing scheme should be totally independent of Layer 2 -
> - isn't that what layering is all about?
> 
> >
> > (about single point of failure being destroyed by a falling tree:
> >   problem could be addressed at its layer: don't move the
> > command center
> >   under trees risking falling); or maybe have two command centers, but
> >   specificllay two, not an arbitrary large unknown number.
> >
> 
> That essentially boils down to "if it hurts, don't do it", and it doesn't work for my customers. Their
> environments are dynamic, and they need the ability to respond to ever-changing realities on the ground.
> 
> At this point, I feel that we're in a discussion that is becoming more and more circular, and therefore,
> dysfunctional. And that, IMO, has been the unfortunate reality of this WG since its inception.
> 
> Regards,
> Stan
> 
> 
> > Alex
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf