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

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Thu, 26 August 2010 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B59A3A69CC for <>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.667
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gRalShsl49Dc for <>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD34A3A683C for <>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,273,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="84112578"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2010 15:21:28 +0100
Received: from glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o7QELRr5028039; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:21:27 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([]) by glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:21:27 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:21:27 +0100
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609914@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
Thread-Index: ActFJvxhJVV4i5zaQ0GEywDfRN5ioAAAcYGQ
References: <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609170@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D036094AB@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2010 14:21:27.0713 (UTC) FILETIME=[F89BD910:01CB4529]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:20:59 -0000

This started from the specific example, so that is clearly quite
to the point. You may now be discussing other cases, but that's
another matter.

If by a node we mean a physically separate entity (in a
wireless network) and if we allow that node to be independently
mobile and to connect to other nodes (otherwise it's not really
an ad hoc node) and it is to be unicast reachable from elsewhere
in the network via one of those other nodes, then it has to be
running something. It's for you to indicate what that something
is and why that isn't a routing protocol, despite having some
(agreed, not all) routing functions, and how it will work in a
MANET with wireless links (with the usual non-transitive

Otherwise you are asking me to prove a negative, and we know
how easy that is.

Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Communications and Networks Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles E. Perkins [] 
Sent: 26 August 2010 15:00
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for

                    *** WARNING ***

  This message has originated outside your organisation,
  either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

Hello Christopher,

I didn't ask what functions YOUR routers performed.

I asked what functions a node would be REQUIRED to
perform in order to communicate in an ad hoc network.

A host does NOT have to pick MPRs in order to
forward packets to a default router.  A host does
NOT have to run a routing protocol in order to
identify one or more default routers.  A host
does NOT have to run a routing protocol in order
to select among network interfaces for delivering
packets to one of its possibly several default

Surely it must be possible to have a discussion
about this without meandering afar from the point.

Charlie P.

On 8/25/2010 8:17 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> I didn't have time to pick up all your points (and I don't
> really have time even for this, so it will be brief).
> You asked what router functions the example I gave satisfied:
> - It's running a routing protocol, and actively participating in
>    it. For example running OLSR it picks MPRs and communicates
>    them.
> - When a host on that node sends a packet, it chooses which
>    neighbour is to be the next hop (possibly even which interface
>    to use to do that) in order to route correctly.
> That'll do to be going on from.
> As for what my mobile is running to pick different points of
> attachment, it's running an entire UMTS protocol stack (and
> a GSM one) to select between base stations. And it's a much
> more asymmetric relationship than any in an ad hoc network.

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.