Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 25 August 2010 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 593CD3A67F8 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ToVKm5xx6vHr for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C683A697A for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so240614ewy.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.28.209 with SMTP id n17mr2381856ebc.64.1282742490790; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.150] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z55sm2103817eeh.15.2010.08.25.06.21.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4C74EAD5.7060300@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:21:28 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <90FAFCBF-7DEA-419E-8B0D-514EE8021B0B@inf-net.nl>
References: <AANLkTi=MZORvNSW7wHdHYOzkOwNZojBars26GfSPgWc9@mail.gmail.com><ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <7ir5hoc4wq.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609162@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C74EAD5.7060300@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
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, 25 Aug 2010 13:21:00 -0000

Alex,

Your statement is not accurate.
You say: "A router with [whatever] is a router to.
Would someone doubt on that?

If you intended to say:
>  A node with static routes (no routing protocol messages) is a router too.

This is definitely not true. Every host may have static routes.

I call a node a router if it:
 - may forward packets;
 - may send routing protocol packets;
 - may send router advertisements.

Reworded: a host 
 - may not forward packets;
 - may not send routing protocol packets;
 - may not send router advertisements.

I have device here on my desk. It is called a Wireless-N Home Router.
I use it as WiFi AP, Ethernet switch and DHCP server.
I don't use it for forwarding packets, because on the yellow marked
port it does some nasty NAPT operations, which I can't use in my setup.
Shall I bring it back to the shop, and ask for a Wireless-N Home Host?
It:
 - may forward packets, but I disabled it;
 - may send routing protocol packets, but I disabled it;
 - may send router advertisements, but I doubt if it supports IPv6.
By the way, if I use packet forwarding, NAPT and MAC NAT, it acts as a host 
on the Internet port. Providers can't detect it is a router, it is all hidden.
Powerful feature, for where providers don't allow routers connected to their 
networks.

Teco



Op 25 aug 2010, om 12:05 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende geschreven:

> Le 25/08/2010 10:41, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit :
>> It's running the routing protocol, and not just listening
>> to it, but engaging actively in it - sending necessary
>> routing protocol messages. It's a router.
> 
> And a router doesn't necessarily have to run a dynamic routing protocol.  A router with static routes (no routing protocol messages) is a router too.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf