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

["Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]>]

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.