Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> Fri, 27 August 2010 12:26 UTC
Return-Path: <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.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 26F3F3A67F3 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.665
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.066, 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 Gt4WIXfwhjNm for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ukmta3.baesystems.com (ukmta3.baesystems.com [20.133.40.55]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96DD3A67B2 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,278,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="84304338"
Received: from unknown (HELO baemasodc004.greenlnk.net) ([10.108.36.11]) by Baemasodc001ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2010 13:27:29 +0100
Received: from glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET (glkms1103.greenlnk.net [10.108.36.194]) by baemasodc004.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o7RCRScq008694; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:27:29 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.93]) by glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:27:28 +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: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:27:28 +0100
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609C8A@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <4C77A17A.1090708@earthlink.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
Thread-Index: ActF2w0KmKzQ4oHURXeSS5uQK4GZdQAB4mRg
References: <AANLkTi=MZORvNSW7wHdHYOzkOwNZojBars26GfSPgWc9@mail.gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C741EBB.8060909@earthlink.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609170@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C75308C.1090506@earthlink.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D036094AB@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C767360.7050805@earthlink.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609914@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C773080.8010601@earthlink.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609AE8@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C77A17A.1090708@earthlink.net>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2010 12:27:28.0833 (UTC) FILETIME=[36BB5310:01CB45E3]
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: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:26:59 -0000
There's a key question as to how much functionality. If a node just has a single point of attachment to an unchanging router, then router prefix autoconf is sufficient, as the host node can just get an address from its router. If we extend that so that it can now move, and use Mobile IP with its home location being the router it first attached to, ditto. The question is what is the case where the host node is doing something useful, but can't just get an address delegated to it by an autoconfed router? (I am not saying I don't think there is such a case. I'm just saying I haven't seen it - quite a different thing.) -- 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 [mailto:charles.perkins@earthlink.net] Sent: 27 August 2010 12:29 To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications *** 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 Chris, The examples I gave DO NOT provide the functionality in your message. That _is_ the point. The point is that a node can beneficially reside in an ad hoc network without doing those things. ... and that we should not legislate otherwise. Regards, Charlie P. On 8/27/2010 1:26 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > I'm failing to see how any of the examples you quote (which I > agree, would not make a node a router) are sufficient for all > of the functionality I noted. I really would like (but I'll > be unable to reply to for at least some days - it's a long > weekend coming up) to know how you get the functionality. > Ideally I'd like equivalent functionality to the OLSR example, > what I wouldn't count is where a host node is permanently > (albeit wirelessly) attached to a single other router node. > How far from the latter and close to the former can you get? > (I can see how to get from the one permanent point of > attachment to occasionally changing that, with transients, > using Mobile IP.) > ******************************************************************** 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. ********************************************************************
- [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for … Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … reshmi r
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … reshmi r
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … reshmi r
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)