Re: [Autoconf] new charter

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 26 February 2009 19:44 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 E553E3A68AC for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:44:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.224
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 E9CLR-uJCSsh for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:44:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr (smtp4-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C307D3A6784 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:44:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C794C81A4; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:45:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bur91-3-82-239-213-32.fbx.proxad.net [82.239.213.32]) by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE174C81FF; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:45:00 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:44:37 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <7E8A76F7-2CE0-463A-8EE8-8877C46B4715@gmail.com> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090225-1, 25/02/2009), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new 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: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:44:49 -0000

Teco Boot a écrit :
> Inline:
> 
> |-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> |Van: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] Namens
> |Alexandru Petrescu
> |Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 18:41
> |Aan: Ryuji Wakikawa
> |CC: autoconf@ietf.org
> |Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
> |
> |Ryuji Wakikawa a écrit :
> |[gracefully re-formatted]
> |> Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
> |>
> |> Last Modified: 2009-02-18
> |>
> |> Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf
> |[snipped]
> |> Description of Working Group:
> |>
> |> In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
> |> 2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local
> |addresses
> |> that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may also need to
> |> configure globally routable addresses, in order to communicate with
> |> devices on the Internet. From the IP layer perspective, an ad hoc
> |> network presents itself as a L3 multi-hop network formed over a
> |> collection of links.
> |>
> |> The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the addressing
> |model
> |> for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure their
> |> addresses. It is required that such models do not cause problems for
> |ad
> |> hoc-unaware parts of the system, such as standard applications running
> |> on an ad hoc node or regular Internet nodes attached to the ad hoc
> |> nodes. 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.
> |
> |Would a straightforward addressing model along the following lines fit
> |the bill?:
> |
> |         -----  wifi "adhoc1"  ------  wifi "adhoc2"  -----
> |        |Host1|---------------|Router|---------------|Host2|
> |         ----- LL1         LL2 ------ LL3        LL4  -----
> |               G1                                G4
> |
> |
> |
> |        "adhoc1" and "adhoc2": 802.11 ESSIDs in "ad-hoc" mode.
> |                               Each is an IPv6 subnet.
> |        LL1...4: IPv6 link-local addresses.
> |                 Self-formed according to rfc2464.
> |        G1, G4:  IPv6 global addresses, for example
> |                 2001:db8::1/64 and 2001:db8::4/64.
> |                 Manually assigned, or pre-configured with SNMP
> |                 or according to stateless autoconf rfc4862.
> 
> I do not understand why the router doesn't advertize prefixes. If so, the
> hosts can autoconfigure globally unique addresses, with distinct prefixes.

Sorry, I made an error indeed putting same prefix.  How about this 
updated picture with the prefixes being distinct:


         -----  wifi "adhoc1"  ------  wifi "adhoc2"  -----
        |Host1|---------------|Router|---------------|Host2|
         ----- LL1         LL2 ------ LL3        LL4  -----
               G1                                G4


        "adhoc1" and "adhoc2": 802.11 ESSIDs in "ad-hoc" mode.
                               Each is an IPv6 subnet.
        LL1...4: IPv6 link-local addresses.
                 Self-formed according to rfc2464.
        G1, G4:  IPv6 global addresses, for example
                 2001:db8:1::1/64 and
                 2001:db8:2::4/64
                 Manually assigned, or pre-configured with SNMP
                 or formed according to stateless autoconf rfc4862;
                 the prefixes are advertised by Router in RAs.

> If not, and one configures globally unique addresses with same prefix on
> different segments, (s)he is fully responsible for what services are and are
> not provided. I would never design such a network.

I agree.

Alex

> So I would say: no.
> 
> My 2ct, Teco
> 
> 
> 
> |Alex
> |
> |
> |_______________________________________________
> |Autoconf mailing list
> |Autoconf@ietf.org
> |https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> 
>