Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Tue, 03 March 2009 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sratliff@cisco.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 BEEBD3A695C for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:35:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 2gXiqrCAcmaD for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:35:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462103A680A for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:35:41 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,296,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="260240983"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2009 15:36:08 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n23Fa7X1016213; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:36:07 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n23Fa7jc014751; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 15:36:07 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.43]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:36:07 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:36:07 -0500
Message-ID: <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD158A@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <49AD4D8D.7070403@gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
Thread-Index: AcmcFVDHHDEEtVvZQ6usK4Tv+WtiBgAAE8kg
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> <1235828619.6096.24.camel@localhost> <49A94589.9050203@gmail.com><7e8d02d40902281906k3fd36f03ud329c1db2738221e@mail.gmail.com> <49AD4D8D.7070403@gmail.com>
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, "HyungJin Lim" <dream.hjlim@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2009 15:36:07.0746 (UTC) FILETIME=[C56FE220:01C99C15]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2579; t=1236094567; x=1236958567; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sratliff@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Stan=20Ratliff=20(sratliff)=22=20<sratliff@cisc o.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Autoconf]=20Autoconf=20addressing=20mo del |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Alexandru=20Petrescu=22=20<alexandru.petrescu@gma il.com>,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22HyungJin=20Lim=22=20<d ream.hjlim@gmail.com>; bh=tGAGrZftBnxuQYrT508T8M1BABeWrRmeQ9G/njc2LSk=; b=GXxSeM9F1ievhUewpZtumBBnD8dj2f6lx262ZV85lBTHOVuJCX6Qg0MZWq HrtQbF1A97HGdKHHXRQF/toUcOt193kmN2JyheOmux7pphT/hj83JgN2uJp7 +S5olGmX0U;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=sratliff@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
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: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:35:42 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:32 AM
> To: HyungJin Lim
> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
> 
> Hello Hyung-Jin,
> 
> HyungJin Lim a écrit :
> >> What are the simplest cases?
> > 
> > 
> > I think we can divided into two category in MANET scenario 
> as follows.
> > 
> > Category 1 Scenario 1: "MANET to Internet", in case, depths 
> of nested
> >  routers(NEMO)  is under three levels. This is practical 
> case in real  
> > world (i.e., most scenarios in real world) Scenario 2: "MANET to 
> > Internet", depths of nested routers is more than three 
> levels. (i.e.,  
> > perhaps disaster situation, etc.. )
> > 
> > Category 2 (scenario 3) : "Only MANET", in case, the 
> network does not  
> > has a connectivity to Internet. (i.e., peer-to-peer network, etc..)
> > 
> > Requirement of address model we need is different according with 
> > considered scenario I think. Then some scenarios included 
> in category
> >  2 not needs topological meaningful address.
> > 
> > Which area is AUTOCONF want to pinpoint ?
> > 
> > I think AUTOCONF should satisfy requirements between pure 
> MANET, NEMO  
> > and MANEMO that can compose of mesh network, although we discussed 
> > about the difference between MANET, NEMO and MANEMO
> > 
> > Moreover, these networks can has some impacts due to 
> mobility pattern, 
> > wireless coverage and any other situations. AUTOCONF 
> Addressing model 
> > can make a important role to efficient and secure aspects.
> > 
> > What do you think about my comments ?
> 
> I think I can understand the classification you made above:
>      -only-MANET
>      -MANET-to-Internet and
>      -MANET-to-MANET-to-Internet (three or more levels)
> 

How about a fourth classification? 
      
       MANET-to-Internet-to-MANET

It is useful in some scenarios. 

Regards,
Stan


> Alex
> 
> > 
> > Hyung-Jin, Lim
> > 
> > 
> > Alex
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ Autoconf 
> mailing list  
> > Autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:Autoconf@ietf.org> 
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>