Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 26 August 2010 13:56 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 4F4A33A687B for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.129
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 1bC6ZcLYP1F9 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC01B3A6876 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o7QDvFUw016764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:57:15 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o7QDvFr1031763; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:57:15 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o7QDvFNi006711; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:57:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4C7672BB.2080608@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:57:15 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
References: <AANLkTi=MZORvNSW7wHdHYOzkOwNZojBars26GfSPgWc9@mail.gmail.com><ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <7ir5hoc4wq.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609162@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C74EAD5.7060300@gmail.com> <90FAFCBF-7DEA-419E-8B0D-514EE8021B0B@inf-net.nl> <4C753EC6.40800@gmail.com> <61F3EA79-9B63-46A9-856F-45478EA22043@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <61F3EA79-9B63-46A9-856F-45478EA22043@inf-net.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
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: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:56:46 -0000
Le 26/08/2010 14:31, Teco Boot a écrit : > Alex, > > You could take some time for research, on hosts having a routing > table. Take a start with host requirements (RFC 1122): | As an > extra feature, a host IP layer MAY implement a table | of "static > routes". Ah well spot. In practice that is actually a MUST - every IP stack has a table of routes, be it ran by Hosts or by Routers. There's no IP stack without routing table. This is one reason why I think it's difficult to identify a Host which is not a Router, nor a Router which is not a Host. Probably one could call a Host a Host if it does more TCP instructions during 1 second, than routing instructions. Alex > > Teco > > Op 25 aug 2010, om 18:03 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende > geschreven: > >> Le 25/08/2010 15:21, Teco Boot a écrit : >>> Alex, >>> >>> Your statement is not accurate. You say: "A router with >>> [whatever] is a router to. Would someone doubt on that? >> >> Right, a router is a router - always valid. >> >> A "machine" with static routes is a router too. >> >>> If you intended to say: >>>> A node with static routes (no routing protocol messages) is a >>>> router too. >>> >>> This is definitely not true. Every host may have static routes. >> >> Right. That's why I tend to accept that there are no Hosts in this >> world and they're all routers, because they all execute longest >> prefix match searches in their routing tables, they all have at >> least two interfaces (lo is one), they all have entries in their >> routing tables. >> >> They're all routers, Hosts don't exist. >> >>> I call a node a router if it: - may forward packets; - may send >>> routing protocol packets; - may send router advertisements. >>> >>> Reworded: a host - may not forward packets; - may not send >>> routing protocol packets; - may not send router advertisements. >> >> Ah "may" makes it impossible to really distinguish. >> >>> I have device here on my desk. It is called a Wireless-N Home >>> Router. I use it as WiFi AP, Ethernet switch and DHCP server. I >>> don't use it for forwarding packets, because on the yellow >>> marked port it does some nasty NAPT operations, which I can't use >>> in my setup. Shall I bring it back to the shop, and ask for a >>> Wireless-N Home Host? >> >> HA haha!! I doubt shop vendor understands "Host" because s/he >> never sells Hosts to anyone! S/he could sell Routers, Switches, >> Desktops, Servers ; or it could Host your website if you wish. >> But never sell you a Host. Who sells Hosts? >> >>> It: - may forward packets, but I disabled it; - may send routing >>> protocol packets, but I disabled it; - may send router >>> advertisements, but I doubt if it supports IPv6. >> >> But that Access Point does have routing table entries, does >> execute the longest prefix match algorithm, hence it's a Router. >> >>> By the way, if I use packet forwarding, NAPT and MAC NAT, it >>> acts as a host on the Internet port. >> >> In a sense. What do you mean it "acts as a Host on the Internet >> port"? What does NAPT does as algorithm, data structures, which a >> Router does not, on the Internet port? >> >>> Providers can't detect it is a router, it is all hidden. Powerful >>> feature, for where providers don't allow routers connected to >>> their networks. >> >> Hmm... >> >> I think also, as you say, that it is good to distinguish it based >> on sending RA or NA: if it sends RA then it's a Router, otherwise >> it's a Host; but disabling RAs on a Router doesn't make it a Host >> :-) - it makes it an IPv4 Router (another Router :-) >> >> Alex >> >>> >>> Teco >>> >>> >>> >>> Op 25 aug 2010, om 12:05 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende >>> geschreven: >>> >>>> Le 25/08/2010 10:41, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit : >>>>> It's running the routing protocol, and not just listening to >>>>> it, but engaging actively in it - sending necessary routing >>>>> protocol messages. It's a router. >>>> >>>> And a router doesn't necessarily have to run a dynamic routing >>>> protocol. A router with static routes (no routing protocol >>>> messages) is a router too. >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf >>>> mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >>> >>> >> >> > >
- [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for … Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … reshmi r
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … reshmi r
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … reshmi r
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)