[Autoconf] Current issue about proposed Charter
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Sat, 28 August 2010 13:53 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 3A9E43A68E9 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.870, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_82=0.6]
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 x4PtGH9962HU for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A0A3A6862 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D91940140 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:53:37 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4C7914DC.4030808@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:53:32 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100827-1, 27/08/2010), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Subject: [Autoconf] Current issue about proposed 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: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:53:13 -0000
Could we clarify the Charter, such that (1) it does talk Hosts not only Routers, end-systems, and (2) work does follow a requirement where the failure of the future AUTOCONF mechanisms would _not_ imply failure of the Internet. AUTOCONF Charter is being discussed - deadline August 30th, 2010. Charter. This is more important. It explicitely says that the two mechanisms to be designed in AUTOCONF are for Routers, doesn't say Hosts at all. There is one important issue with it: Hosts are the ones needing most to be autoconfigured, and less Routers. The issue is hard to understand knowing the difficulty to distinguish Hosts from Routers by simply listing their functionalities (routing table, number of interfaces, forwarding, send rt protocol messages). By many RFCs Most Routers often act as Hosts, and vice-versa! However, there is one simple picture to understand easily: that of End-systems facing the core network Internet plumbing Routers (private discussion). It is a very good design principle to keep the core network running despite the failure of the end-systems. Failure of AUTOCONF to correctly configure the end-system must not imply a failure of the core network. That's a good requirement to set on end-systems AUTOCONF. But it should mean that we configure the end-systems, not only the core routers. If we say that AUTOCONF does only Routers (core network) then we have no requirement on the behaviour of end-systems, thus no design principle to respect - it is bad. Finally, the distinction Router - Core Router is further blurred in MANET: MANET Routers are little devices moving around, whose failure has no influence on the Internet - actually disconnected from it. A NEMO Mobile Router is the same little device, connected to Internet but doing tunnelling and, although I'd like it AUTOCONF'ed, its failure would surely not imply route churn in the Internet thanks to that tunnelling. At this point one would like to idenfity what is the word "router" in the current Charter: is it an entity that _could_ break the Internet? Is it an "end system"? Mobile IP and ND talk "Nodes" ("a Host or a Router"). DHCP uses "DHCP Client" vs "DHCP Server". Do we mean more of "DHCP Client" rather than "DHCP Server"? IPsec uses Host, Router and Firewall. RFC0995 (authored by ISO) and SIP talk "End System", "Network" and "Intermediate System". If we clarify the Charter proposal, then the rfc5889 title (uses "Router") could be clarify accordingly, I believe. Alex
- [Autoconf] Current issue about proposed Charter Alexandru Petrescu