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

"Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> Sat, 28 August 2010 03:34 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
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 A1DF33A677E for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 v5ql21sdWi1k for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639493A677D for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=TvJI56n+YfGSpKjxZ6BoApHNJjFzrpyh0UIhZi5WzyoX3B5pah4pPvn6TBGXPoOa; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [207.74.239.6] (helo=[10.150.0.248]) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1OpCBm-0004oO-Os; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:34:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4C7883D0.20101@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:34:40 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
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> <7E56B44F-80A1-4A19-9498-0AACAFC5B4D9@inf-net.nl> <C7C8FE2C-4232-4BC0-A4CB-59DCCFB2A529@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <C7C8FE2C-4232-4BC0-A4CB-59DCCFB2A529@inf-net.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f5235089839e53c07fdbfc664ef1bea6d39350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 207.74.239.6
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
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: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:34:13 -0000

Hello Teco,

On 8/27/2010 2:53 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
> Hi Charlie,
>
> More thoughts on the grey zone, separating host and routers.
> You stick to the basic definition: routers forward packets, hosts do not.
> OK?
>
> We had discussion on routing protocol speakers. I said: sending routing
> protocol packets makes a node a router.
>
> But for routing protocol speakers, that:
>   - do not forward packets
>   - do not send RAs
>   - do not advertise any willingness to forward packets
> Would that be routers?
>
> If you say: no, these are hosts, I can follow.

These are hosts.  Check.

> But for accepting such, it should be made clear to other nodes, that
> the routing protocol speaker is a host, not a router.

Now you lost me.  Why must such a host need to be mentioned
to other nodes?  If it were mentioned (e.g., by a proactive
routing protocol) why would it have to be identified as a
non-routing host?

> Some mechanisms:
>   - passive mode / don't send routing protocol packets at all
>   - OLSR willingness = WILL_NEVER (0)
>   - not advertise any links
>   - advertise links, but with "do not use" attribute / metric
>   - only put reachability for itself in AODV / DYMO messages
>   - never send BGP reachability with own address as next_hop

What mechanisms are these?  Host mechanisms?
How is "not advertising" a "mechanism" (for example)?


> Using this classification, a BGP route server is a nice example for a
> host being an active routing protocol speaker.

The host is a router server, not a router.

> draft-jasinska-ix-bgp-route-server-00:
> |  Although a route server uses BGP to exchange
> |  reachability information with each of its clients, it does not
> |  forward traffic itself and is therefore not a router.
>
> If we agree on such classification, there is some advertorial work to do.
> Because many would say (ad hoc) routing protocol speakers are routers.

Yes, people are saying this.  I don't agree.
It sounds to me like a way to wind up toy angels and
get them to dance on the head of a pin, so to speak.

> E.g. we need errata on RFC's from MANET WG and update the active drafts.

I'd have to check on this.

Regards,
Charlie P.