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

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Tue, 24 August 2010 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814583A6767 for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.403
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.404, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0KtorabOPvMj for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378023A6782 for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,262,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="83525955"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 24 Aug 2010 09:55:54 +0100
Received: from glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o7O8trpU028841; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:55:54 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([]) by glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:55:53 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:55:53 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
Thread-Index: ActDRxfR4YzF8cZTTl+KHn3/Ir3/bAAIaUig
References: <>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: "reshmi r" <>, <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2010 08:55:53.0915 (UTC) FILETIME=[28BB50B0:01CB436A]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:55:23 -0000

I think there's a misunderstanding here. All the way back to RFC 2501,
a node has been defined as a router plus possible hosts. If you've got
a wireless device that wants to participate in a MANET it needs to be
running an ad hoc routing protocol, i.e. it's a router. It may perform
only a limited subset of routing functions - consider for example an
OLSR node that does not wish to be a relay, only an endpoint. It can
do that by setting WILLINGNESS equal to zero, and if it is built only
to take such a role it can then throw away large chunks of OLSR code
(for example it never sends TC messages). But the node still has some
router functions. This is the model of both RFC 2501 and 5889-to-be.
The host can then get its addresses in any non-MANET-specific way on
that node.

Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Communications and Networks Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of reshmi r
Sent: 24 August 2010 05:45
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for

                    *** WARNING ***

  This message has originated outside your organisation,
  either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

Hi Teco,

Do they really mean a model for the autoconfiguration and is there is
no role for host in autoconfiguration??........the topic goes in to
real debate. what was the final outcome of the discussion???.

Hi All,

Can anyone finalise the suggested outcomes of the discussion??Do you
all really mean that the routers only need to do the autoconfiguration
and the nodes have no role in it??? If so how can we believe a router
to be genuine and how can we ensure that the router will never become
selfish??? so there should be some role in hosts to monitor the
traffic behaviour of router and the host should be able to notify with
some protocol mechanism. do you all really mean to change the title???
I strongly disagree with this.


Hi Thomas,

On the title change, I remember in Maastricht all accept one
preferred the title change. On the list as well.
There are two arguments.
1) it is _a_ model
2) the model doesn't support hosts, or at least not very well
On the latter, there was a discussion without outcome.

Regards, Teco
Autoconf mailing list

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.