Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model
Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Thu, 29 October 2009 12:13 UTC
Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
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 D7F363A6A87 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6]
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 Zgdia6W4z3TX for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f223.google.com (mail-bw0-f223.google.com [209.85.218.223]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06ACC3A6A56 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so2235512bwz.29 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.26.134 with SMTP id e6mr4050346bkc.87.1256818431081; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C67EC3A73E6A814B8F3FE826438C5F8C02277871@ms-dt01thalia.tsn.tno.nl>
References: <7FDC9EB7-F208-45A2-ACD7-283B980C23E3@thomasclausen.org> <7877C5C0B5CC894AB26113CF06CF886302C7FC76@ms-dt01thalia.tsn.tno.nl> <C67EC3A73E6A814B8F3FE826438C5F8C02277871@ms-dt01thalia.tsn.tno.nl>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:13:50 +0100
Message-ID: <25c114b90910290513w462e68aen5f1fc7d73bd3e69d@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: "Holtzer, A.C.G. (Arjen)" <arjen.holtzer@tno.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-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: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:13:40 -0000
Arjen, Ronald, I hope that Ronald did not really ask you to say "me too" but rather to state your own opinion on the list (whether that be "pro" or "against") :-) Please read draft-clausen-manet-autoconf-recommendations-00 if you did not yet. This explains the rationale for using /32 and /128 prefixes. It also explains what can go wrong when using shorter prefixes and the symptoms thereof (ICMP redirects...) Ulrich On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Holtzer, A.C.G. (Arjen) <arjen.holtzer@tno.nl> wrote: > Hi all, > > Ronald told me to say: "Me too". :) > > Regards, > Arjen > > > ________________________________ > From: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't > Sent: donderdag 29 oktober 2009 11:57 > To: Thomas Heide Clausen; autoconf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress > anddraft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model > > Thomas, Ryuji, WG members, > > My vote below: > > ________________________________ > From: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Thomas Heide Clausen > Sent: donderdag 22 oktober 2009 1:50 > To: autoconf@ietf.org > Subject: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model > > All, > It appeared to the chairs that the comments raised at the Stockholm IETF, as > well as on the list subsequently, concerning the document: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model > had been addressed fully by the editors, and to the WGs satisfaction - at > least, there were no issue raised to the latter/latest version hereof. The > chairs therefore found it a good idea to move the document forward as a WG > document, and progress this document as such. We therefore approved for > publication: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model > We (the chairs) still believe that this is the proper approach in order to > make progress for the WG. > Do note that the WG is 7 months past the milestone for initial document > submission, and 1 month past the milestone for having progressed the > document to the IESG and/or closed up shop! And, there has been no > discussions (in meetings or on this list) on alternative candidate documents > for the work item which [autoconf] is chartered to accomplish. > To put it bluntly, this WG is far far behind schedule and this document > seemed, and still seems, by virtue of having been widely discussed and > agreed upon, as the best shot at making progress for this WG. > That said, we (and, this we is also the chairs) will take this opportunity > to ask the WGs opinion on how to progress. If you have any opinion, please > let it be known to the WG (via this mailing list) before 29/10/09 > (i.e. Thursday next week) at noon CET. Please be specific and constructive, > i.e., pick one of: > o if you think that the WG should proceed > with draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model > as a baseline, say so! > o if you think there're cardinal (but fixable) issues missing or wrong with > draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model, then let the WG know what these > issues are, and propose a solution before the deadline. The Editors > will certainly do their best to address the issues. > > Yes, I think there are serious, but fixable issues > with draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model. Carlos and I wrote > draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressing-model to offer a different perspective > on these issues. Let me briefly summarize here our (or at least: my) main > objections: > > 1. Section 1, Introduction and section 3, Applicability Statement: Nowhere > in these sections is there any mention of the assumed host/router model, > i.e. whether applications (including management clients) can run on routers > and if they can, make use of the interfaces / addresses that are the subject > of this draft OR whether applications are assumed to always separated by at > least one hop from these interfaces. However, the ghost of > draft-clausen-manet-autoconf-recommendations-00 seems to be hovering over > this draft, so the latter is sort of implied. I would prefer that this is > spelled out, as it impacts the type of addresses that need to be configured, > I might not necessarily agree, but al least it would be clearer. > > 2. Section 4, IP Subnet Prefix Configuration: > > - "Subnet prefix configuration on such interfaces must thus not make any > promises in terms of direct (one hop) IP connectivity to IP addresses other > than that of the interface itself." I find this unconvincing. What promise > would there be, really? Imagine a wired Ethernet, with several nodes on it > sharing a prefix.It would be rare for the subnet to be fully populated, even > on an IPv4 /24. So if I dream up a host part / Interface ID, append it to > the subnet prefix and use that as a destination address, what would be my > chances of reaching another node? To be clear, I *agree* on the unique / > non-overlapping subnet prefix principle stated here, but find the motivation > lacking. > - It should say "non-overlapping", because "not the same" is not sufficient. > > 3. Section 6, Addressing Model > > - 6.1, IPv4 Model: Disagree that the prefix length should be /32. For subnet > prefixes to be unique / non-overlapping (see definition in > draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressing-model), is a necessary, but also > sufficient condition. I ran a MANET with 192.168.x.1/24 on the MANET > interfaces for many months. I fail to see what's wrong with that. (Agree on > what is said here about IPv LL's, by the way) > > - 6.2, IPv6 Model: Strongly disagree that the prefix length should be /128. > Why paint ourselves into a corner like that? I would urge the draft authors > to have a look at RFC 5375, "IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment > Considerations". While this is "only" an informational RFC, I think it is > worth reading. When in a hurry, you can skip Appendix A, but do not skip > Appendix B! Besides, there was discussion at the IETF-75 Autoconf session, > see the minutes of that meeting: > > Dave Thaler > - Consistency with RFC 4291 (in particular section 2.5.1). > - Do you believe you have 64-bit interface identifiers that > are unique within the subnet prefix? (the 64-bit part being > a requirement for all unicast addresses that do not begin > with binary '000'). > - If the answer to previous question is 'no', do you require > prefixes to start with binary '000'? > - If that is not the case either, shouldn't the document say > that the addressing model will not be compliant with RFC4291? > > and: > > Dave Thaler > - If you believe that you ARE compliant with RFC4291, the way to > phrase it is, that you have a /64 subnet prefix, but it is only > assigned to a single host. > and later Thomas Narten wrote: > > Thomas Narten (Jabber) > - IMO, /128 does not conflict with existing specs. We are blurring and > confusing > various issues. You can have a /128 for on-link prefixes and still have a > 64-bit Interface IDs. > > but he did not explain this any further. So who is right: Thaler or Narten? > And what ithe prefix length of a ULA assigned to an interface? /64 as far as > I was able to figure out. > > - IPv6 link-locals: (Too?) Much has been said about this already. My > opinion: LL's are there, and they may be pretty hard to get rid of. I'm more > concerned about existing platforms than about these new > ultra-resource-starved devices that have been subject of discusion on the ML > recently. You can choose to not use them for routing purposes (in the narrow > definition of routing as discovering network topology and populating the RIB > / FIB), but you may not be able to influence whether they are used for > forwarding. I've seen neighbor solicitations being sent with LL source > addresses from MANET interfaces, that also had global IPv6 addresses > configured. > > - 3rd bullet under "known limitations": routing protocol packets are sent > hop-by-hop. They are intercepted. processed and possibly regenerated at each > router, so limitation does not apply. > > Oops, getting too close to deadline. This will have to do. > > Regards, > Ronald > > > > o if you think that draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model is beyond hope, > let the WG know explicitly how you suggest that we progress at this point > -- > considering the current timeline!! > Cheers, > Ryuji & Thomas > > This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at > http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html > > This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at > http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html > > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > >
- [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-autoconf… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… sratliff
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… mase
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Hajime Tazaki
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Juan Antonio Cordero Fuertes
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Cedric Adjih
- [Autoconf] draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressing-mo… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressin… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressin… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Holtzer, A.C.G. (Arjen)
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoc… Holtzer, A.C.G. (Arjen)
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… sratliff
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… sratliff
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… sratliff
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-auto… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address… Alexandru Petrescu