IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 05 February 2010 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 9DDAE3A6C7E for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:28:32 -0800 (PST)
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 gLWLooBy9+4y for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:28:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CPSMTPM-EML106.kpnxchange.com (Cpsmtpm-eml106.kpnxchange.com [195.121.3.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6660E3A69F9 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:28:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by CPSMTPM-EML106.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.0.6001.18000); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:29:21 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: "'Charles E. Perkins'" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
References: <be8c8d781001260409qd23d4era0eac47eaeb3dba2@mail.gmail.com> <8DCBF4A4-7879-4148-A8FE-9A73219536B9@gmail.com> <008c01caa0fe$0eee3530$2cca9f90$@nl> <4B631699.7040504@earthlink.net> <009001caa10d$8729a2a0$957ce7e0$@nl> <4B6347DA.1040004@earthlink.net> <00a601caa19e$7122c810$53685830$@nl> <C8A0698C-B04F-475B-B750-842C8786778F@thomasclausen.org> <005501caa5a5$9b0fc7d0$d12f5770$@nl> <6CD290EC-969F-4421-B5C9-0558A4A5A865@thomasclausen.org> <003501caa63a$7b15ca20$71415e60$@nl> <4B6C6120.7000808@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B6C6120.7000808@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:29:19 +0100
Message-ID: <008b01caa691$21c24910$6546db30$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acqmj7+wCahzQpFySUO8rI3Gc+UPoQAAGBNA
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2010 18:29:21.0217 (UTC) FILETIME=[2276F310:01CAA691]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, 'Thomas Heide Clausen' <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document
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, 05 Feb 2010 18:28:32 -0000

Hi Charlie,

The difference between configured "wide prefix per MANET segment"
versus "longest / non-overlapping prefix prefix per MANET interface"
is that the first is relatively static. The latter needs active
neighborhood discovery.

I say the first one is "less clever" and it is standard IP stack behavior.
Prefix can be learned with ND. Another mechanism is needed for IPv4.

Regards, Teco


>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:charles.perkins@earthlink.net]
>Verzonden: vrijdag 5 februari 2010 19:19
>Aan: Teco Boot
>CC: 'Thomas Heide Clausen'; autoconf@ietf.org
>Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document
>
>Hello Teco,
>
>
>On 2/5/2010 12:09 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
>
>>
>> The IP stack puts the configured prefixes on IP interfaces in the
>> routing table. This provides L3 connectivity whenever there is a L2
>> link.
>
>You used "configured" in a magic way.
>Where did the configuration arise?
>
>> The 'something clever' puts longer prefixes in the routing table.
>> This could introduce multi-hop paths for 1-hop reachable nodes, for
>sure
>> when link metrics are in place. And of course multi-hop paths to nodes
>> that are in the MANET, but not 1-hop reachable.
>
>O.K.
>
>>
>> I strongly disagree with "that 'something clever' is the same thing as
>> what configures the interface". Our old charter was clear the Autoconf
>> mechanism shall be independent of MANET protocols.
>
>I do not remember anyone claiming that they were the same.
>What am I missing?
>
>Regards,
>Charlie P.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email