Re: [Autoconf] new charter

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Fri, 27 February 2009 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sratliff@cisco.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 0FE7C3A69FF for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:12:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 L-6yLNVPwckJ for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:12:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDAF13A695A for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:12:57 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,278,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="38734888"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2009 20:13:20 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1RKDK0b001037; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:13:20 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1RKDKCi029296; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:13:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.43]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:13:20 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:13:18 -0500
Message-ID: <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0CF3@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A84285.5030103@nps.navy.mil>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] new charter
Thread-Index: AcmZE76JekuVqIpRT865d5rBrQuoRAAA3vDw
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <7E8A76F7-2CE0-463A-8EE8-8877C46B4715@gmail.com> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost><49A7BB89.5040807@gmail.com> <003901c998cb$42b71e90$c8255bb0$@nl><49A7E97A.2010503@gmail.com> <006801c998fd$06c5bd60$14513820$@nl> <49A8272D.2060400@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C48@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49A83172.70105@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C70@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49A84285.5030103@nps.navy.mil>
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: "Rex Buddenberg" <budden@nps.navy.mil>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 20:13:20.0038 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5673C60:01C99917]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3154; t=1235765600; x=1236629600; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sratliff@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Stan=20Ratliff=20(sratliff)=22=20<sratliff@cisc o.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Autoconf]=20new=20charter |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Rex=20Buddenberg=22=20<budden@nps.navy.mil>; bh=Hfxik8N7vmSPmQWkhvL1Q1X1KCfAAn0H/8t6aBpExwA=; b=dTrciDCpTiCwvTzctbB4+8RMXTCPBU1ITRyZENBbdSjSUh5CHNR0WS1eXT ljTpf1Co3mOaxy3Q+moTbU64HOYgWzSMVvvunzsB+zKeAt6wWPqiKA/5uu0C G6tP0K8BXa;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=sratliff@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
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 Feb 2009 20:12:59 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Buddenberg [mailto:budden@nps.navy.mil] 
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:44 PM
> To: Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
> Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
> 
> Stan,
> 
> The difference is not geo footprint (you got that right).  
> Rather the difference is between LAN (at fringe of network) 
> and WAN (in the interior).  A WAN will always be at least one 
> router away from end systems. 


Rex, 

Absolutely agree with you. I understood the issue to be the former instead of the latter. 

Regards,
Stan 


> 
> While we're at it, references to SSIDs is not proper -- 
> that's 802.11-specific. 
> 
> Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:
> >  
> >
> >   
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:31 PM
> >> To: Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
> >> Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; Teco Boot; autoconf@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
> >>
> >> Stan Ratliff (sratliff) a écrit :
> >>     
> >>>> Well I agree the physical laws are so.  But I disagree to
> >>>>         
> >> have 25km
> >>     
> >>>> MANETs in the Charter.  I agree with "25m IPv6 subnets",
> >>>>         
> >> if they were
> >>     
> >>>> explicitely stated so in the charter.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex
> >>>>
> >>>>         
> >>> And I'll have to disagree with the "25m subnets". I 
> regularly deal 
> >>> with line-of-sight radio links that are in excess of 
> 25km. We can't 
> >>> limit ourselves to short-range technologies (e.g.
> >>>       
> >> Commercial 802.11,
> >>     
> >>> Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc). I don't believe a distance should be 
> >>> explicitly stated in the charter, rather, some verbiage 
> that talks 
> >>> about "radio neighbors in range" should be sufficient.
> >>>       
> >> I wouldn't disagree with a Charter mentioning we deal with 
> 25m IPv6 
> >> subnets and with 30.000km IPv6 subnets, and here are the two 
> >> practical methods to put addresses on these nodes.
> >>
> >> But I would disagree with a Charter saying we deal with 
> all wireless 
> >> links ranging from personal area to sattellite and everything in 
> >> between
> >>   and the generic addressing model is the following...
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >
> > Hmmm, that's a problem. Because I don't see a difference in 
> a 3m subnet using Bluetooth, and a 35,000km "subnet" using a 
> satellite with IP routing on board. I think the charter needs 
> to solve the problem for both of those, because I believe the 
> distance of the link shouldn't be a factor. 
> >
> > Regards,
> > Stan
> >
> >
> >   
> >>     
> > _______________________________________________
> > Autoconf mailing list
> > Autoconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> >
> >   
> 
> --
> Rex Buddenberg
> Senior Lecturer
> Naval Postgraduate School
> Monterey, Ca 93943
> 831/656-3576
> 
>