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

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Fri, 27 August 2010 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F3F3A67F3 for <>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.665
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gt4WIXfwhjNm for <>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96DD3A67B2 for <>; 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 ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2010 13:27:29 +0100
Received: from glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET ( []) by (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 ([]) 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: <>
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
Thread-Index: ActF2w0KmKzQ4oHURXeSS5uQK4GZdQAB4mRg
References: <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609170@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D036094AB@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609914@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609AE8@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2010 12:27:28.0833 (UTC) FILETIME=[36BB5310:01CB45E3]
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: 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 [] 
Sent: 27 August 2010 12:29
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 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.

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.