Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 26 March 2010 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.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 D2D8C3A6B5B; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.133
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 7ueacX24oPfE; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6D63A6B2E; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B832CD07; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:04:10 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XQKm2ChRvuE2; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:04:10 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09032CEC0; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:04:08 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4BACF717.6030206@piuha.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:04:07 -0700
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC
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, 26 Mar 2010 18:03:49 -0000

Erik,

First of all, the document is *an* addressing model for ad hoc networks. 
It does not claim to be the only model. For instance, during working 
group discussions it also became apparent that link local addresses 
could also be employed, albeit -- as stated in the document -- the 
working group prefers other types of addresses.

Note that this document talks about prefix and address configuration, 
not router IDs. You assume that we talk about router IDs because the 
document says that it would be beneficial to have the addresses be 
unique within a routing domain. But that's not the reason. The reason is 
that in an ad hoc network you may end up being a neighbor to any other 
device, and you want to avoid an address collision merely for the 
reasons of not getting a collision of two same addresses in the same link.

Jari