Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.

Hi Henning and all,

On 2010/06/29, at 5:44, Henning Rogge wrote:

> On Tue June 29 2010 14:34:41 Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>> I don't think elections are a good way to add redundancy for an address
>>> configuration system. The dependency of a single node in the whole
>>> network to configure the addresses will be a bottleneck for larger mesh
>>> networks.
>> 
>> But elections is what gets rid of central node bottlenecks... if that
>> single node fails then elect another.
> Elections are a real complex thing in MANETs, better have redundancy and "no 
> bottlenecks" by allowing multiple redundant address providers.

From the proposed charter, election part is just "future extension" and not the item we will work on right away.

In this charter we try to recycle existing IP autoconfiguration protocols for MANET environment. 

This was clearly noted in the previous charter. see below.
"This group's effort may include the development of new protocol 
mechanisms, should the existing IP autoconfiguration mechanisms be found
inadequate. However, the first task of the working group is to describe
one practical addressing model for ad hoc networks."

DHCP is a protocol supporting prefix delegation and address assignment now.
RA based approach (Alex's proposal) may be an option, too.
However, 6LowPAN WG is working on this subject based on the AUTOCONF address arch.

Why not stick to the existing IP autoconfiguration mechanism as a starting point
so that we can directly go to the solution space discussion.  
Do you want to spend a few years to define protocol requirements of a solution(s)?
I specially concern the endless activity cycle in AUTOCONF from the WG's history.

> 
>>> I don't see a difference between 1 and 2, for IPv6 case 1 is just case 2
>>> with a prefix length of 128 (or 64 if we use the IPv6 autoconf postfix).
>> 
>> To my quick reading 2) does prefixes too whereas 1) does addresses only.
> Which make it a waste of time to develop sollution 1, because it's only a 
> special case of sollution 2.

Why waste of time? These two items should be tightly related, but each solution (1 and ) should work independently. 
For instance, we may use a manet routing protocol to assign an address and use DHCP for PD in the future.
To support these future extension, we should separate these two items.

regards,
ryuji

> 

> 
> Henning Rogge
> -- 
> Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
> Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
> Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
> Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
> Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
> mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
> GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf