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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Thu, 26 August 2010 12:30 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 9FE1B3A6873 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.513
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, 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 ngVbQG5g3ssI for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F233A6AE5 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so1292127eyd.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.54.140 with SMTP id q12mr6895375ebg.71.1282825883250; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.128.0.165] ([77.61.241.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm3979978eei.7.2010.08.26.05.31.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:31:21 -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: <4C753EC6.40800@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:31:19 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <61F3EA79-9B63-46A9-856F-45478EA22043@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> <90FAFCBF-7DEA-419E-8B0D-514EE8021B0B@inf-net.nl> <4C753EC6.40800@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: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:31:04 -0000

Alex,

You could take some time for research, on hosts having a routing table.
Take a start with host requirements (RFC 1122):
|  As an extra feature, a host IP layer MAY implement a table
|  of "static routes".

Teco

Op 25 aug 2010, om 18:03 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende geschreven:

> Le 25/08/2010 15:21, Teco Boot a écrit :
>> Alex,
>> 
>> Your statement is not accurate. You say: "A router with [whatever]
>> is a router to. Would someone doubt on that?
> 
> Right, a router is a router - always valid.
> 
> A "machine" with static routes is a router too.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Right.  That's why I tend to accept that there are no Hosts in this
> world and they're all routers, because they all execute longest prefix
> match searches in their routing tables, they all have at least two
> interfaces (lo is one), they all have entries in their routing tables.
> 
> They're all routers, Hosts don't exist.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Ah "may" makes it impossible to really distinguish.
> 
>> 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?
> 
> HA haha!!  I doubt shop vendor understands "Host" because s/he never
> sells Hosts to anyone!  S/he could sell Routers, Switches, Desktops,
> Servers ; or it could Host your website if you wish.  But never sell you
> a Host.  Who sells Hosts?
> 
>> 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.
> 
> But that Access Point does have routing table entries, does execute the
> longest prefix match algorithm, hence it's a Router.
> 
>> By the way, if I use packet forwarding, NAPT and MAC NAT, it acts as
>> a host on the Internet port.
> 
> In a sense.  What do you mean it "acts as a Host on the Internet port"?
> What does NAPT does as algorithm, data structures, which a Router does
> not, 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.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> I think also, as you say, that it is good to distinguish it based on
> sending RA or NA: if it sends RA then it's a Router, otherwise it's a
> Host; but disabling RAs on a Router doesn't make it a Host :-) - it
> makes it an IPv4 Router (another Router :-)
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
>