Re: AUTOCONF address architecture (was: [Autoconf] Review of draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07)
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 26 November 2007 18:19 UTC
Return-path: <autoconf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwiYk-000180-V8; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:19:54 -0500
Received: from autoconf by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IwiYk-00015r-3U for autoconf-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:19:54 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwiYj-00014Z-PY for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:19:53 -0500
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.179]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwiYf-0007X6-2c for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:19:53 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1196101188!27291390!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=.,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8]
Received: (qmail 608 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2007 18:19:48 -0000
Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-10.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2007 18:19:48 -0000
Received: from il06exr02.mot.com (il06exr02.mot.com [129.188.137.132]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lAQIJlUZ017031; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:19:47 -0700 (MST)
Received: from il06vts04.mot.com (il06vts04.mot.com [129.188.137.144]) by il06exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lAQIJlMc026615; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:19:47 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.129.41.160]) by il06exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lAQIJjfK026603; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:19:46 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <474B0E40.8020802@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:19:44 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich.herberg@polytechnique.edu>
Subject: Re: AUTOCONF address architecture (was: [Autoconf] Review of draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07)
References: <25c114b90711260716j7129c650x3af081bbab5ec97e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <25c114b90711260716j7129c650x3af081bbab5ec97e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071124-0, 24/11/2007), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: b2809b6f39decc6de467dcf252f42af1
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Ulrich, please allow me make some comments without troubling too much the waters on this topic. This document manetarch is already largely discussed and hard-agreed, and deep in the reviewing state. Ulrich Herberg wrote: [...] > MANET <~~~~~~+~~~~~~> > Interface | Delegated > | Prefix > ''''''''''''''''''''' ========== > ' MANET ' <=== P::/62 = > ' Router ' ========== > ''''''''' : ' Assigned > : ' : ' Prefix > : '++--------+' ============ > : '|Loopback |' <=== P:1::/64 = > ============ : '|P:1::L/64|' ============ > = : = : '+---------+' > = Other = : ''''''''''''' Assigned > =Interfaces= : Prefix > ============ : ============ > +...+...........+ <=== P:2::/64 = > : : ============ > +------+--+ +--+------+ > |P:2::1/64| * * * |P:2::K/64| > +---------+ +---------+ [...] The first thing I'd note is that people have already worked very hard to get agreement between several very different opinions on that figure. It's been long debated at least at public meetings and it's been very difficult for many people to finally agree on it - I respect the work and I don't oppose it. That said. > -- figure 6: I would definitely add some more explanations to this > figure (which itself is very good) in the paragraph above of it: it > could be explained why a /62 prefix is used in the delegated prefix, > otherwise one could think it's a typo. To me, that /62 is clear. It means that a MANET Router is allocated that prefix. That prefix is further divided by that Router's logic into some /64 prefixes which are then assigned on interfaces (presumably for Ethernet EID SLAAC stateless autoconf to work ok to the hosts attached). My personal understanding is that this is hierarchically aggregated prefixes, and it is good and an obvious common denominator - I agree with it. What's not clear to me is the "P" - what does it mean. Is it a 32bit string? Less? It's not common IPv6 notation, but it is conceptually understandable. I wrote to authors and there seems to be suggestion to substitute "2001:db8::/32" (RFC3849 "IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation") for "P", for a more precise IPv6 notation. Further, what _could_ be clearer, is _probably_ an IPv6 Addressing Architecture for AUTOCONF, that would show both that hierarchically aggregated prefixes _and_ some completely non-aggregated prefixes for a completely non-hierarchical topology. That's difficult to draw for at least two reasons: (1) how could a MANET Router be at such top routing level such to have two prefixes differing on the first (!) bit on two of its interfaces - these are typically huge Router farms not small MANET Routers and (2) there's only one prefix reserved for documentation (2001:db8::/32) so whatever two prefixes one will derive from it they'll always be shown somehow aggregated. I think it's tough to illustrate a suggestive non-hierarchical non-aggregated example. I am not sure whether this non-hierarchical non-aggregated AUTOCONF IPv6 Addressing Architecture is relevant for MANET, or just one of its particular cases. It's just that people mention very often that MANETs are non-hierarchical, so I think a figure would be more support for it. > Also the loopback interface is not explained in the text. I'm also surprised it's indeed not explained in the manetarch text. But for this also there seems to be already agreement that MANET uses the loopback interface in a special way. It could be very difficult to get it modified in that document. I think it's very hard to modify existing consensus - I wouldn't try. At some point I could live without knowing what the manetarch document use intends to make out of the loopback interface as long as AUTOCONF mechanism would work without any special loopback treatment too in some cases. My two cents worth. > One could maybe also add in the text that the address of the MANET > interface of is not part of a subnet, or formulated in another way: > the MANET is not a subnet. sorry, I'm confused by the "of is not" text above? > In the second paragraph of section 5.1, one could relate these nodes > with the figure (to help the reader understand which nodes in the > figure are exposed to the MANET characteristics and which not) -- > section 8.1. "one or more IP hops - MANET, _site_,...". Is the site > scope defined? Hasn't it been declared deprecated in RFC3879? I agree. > -- same section, last sentence. I do not understand this sentence; > why do you suddenly talk about AS, when you did never before or after > this sentence? I think you mean this manetarch draft sentence: > Different frameworks for autoconfiguration, network management, and > routing within an Autonomous System (AS) can be developed based upon > the expected constraints and operating conditions. I think it meant eg AUTOCONF could develop a new autoconfiguration mechanism (like SLAAC/DHCP), and maybe a new SNMP extension or even a BGP extension; and that three should be different. I read it highly conceptual, I can live ok with it. Of course, that's my humble interpretation. Thanks, Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
- [Autoconf] Review of draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarc… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: AUTOCONF address architecture (was: [Autoconf… Alexandru Petrescu
- [Autoconf] Re: Review of draft-ietf-autoconf-mane… Ian Chakeres