Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)

Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
> HyungJin Lim a écrit :
>> I'm sorry for correction about the following comment and duplicate 
>> comments.
>> My first language is not English.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *HyungJin Lim* <dream.hjlim@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:dream.hjlim@gmail.com>>
>> Date: 2009/3/5
>> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network 
>> Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
>> To: iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>
>> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>, 
>> alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> Inline...
>>
>> 2009/3/5 IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org 
>> <mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org>>
>>
>>     A modified charter has been submitted for the Ad-Hoc Network
>>     Autoconfiguration working group in the Internet Area of the IETF.  
>> The
>>     IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The modified charter is
>>     provided below for informational purposes only.  Please send your
>>     comments
>>     to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>) by
>>     Wednesday, March 11, 2009.
>>
>>     Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
>>     -------------------------------------------------------------
>>     Last Modified: 2009-02-18
>>
>>     Current Status: Active Working Group
>>
>>     Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf
>>     <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf>
>>
>>     Chair(s):
>>     Ryuji Wakikawa [ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com>]
>>     Thomas Clausen [T.Clausen@computer.org 
>> <mailto:T.Clausen@computer.org>]
>>
>>     Internet Area Director(s):
>>     Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>]
>>     Mark Townsley [townsley@cisco.com <mailto:townsley@cisco.com>]
>>
>>     Internet Area Advisor:
>>     Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>]
>>
>>     Mailing Lists:
>>     General Discussion: autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
>>     To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>     Archive:
>>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html
>>
>>     Description of Working Group:
>>
>>     In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
>>     2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local 
>> addresses
>>     that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may also 
>> need to
>>     configure globally routable addresses, in order to communicate with
>>     devices on the Internet. From the IP layer perspective, an ad hoc
>>     network presents itself as a L3 multi-hop network formed over a
>>     collection of links.
>>
>>  
>> In here, I have a question !
>> What's meaning of globally routable addresses ?
> 
> I think it's a commonly agreed term, in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture 
>  RFC.
> 
>> I think globally routable addresses should include topologically 
>> correct address and topologically incorrect address.
> 
> Correct relative to what?
> 
>> The reason I address this is that the NEMO basic support should 
>> configure topologically incorrect address in nested NEMO.
> 
> I agree: addresses configured within a nested NEMO moving network are 
> probably topologically incorrect with respect to the CoA and subnet 
> assigned to the top-level Mobile Router egress interface of a parent 
> NEMO moving network.
> 
>> But topologically incorrect address is also globally routable 
>> addresses if it a packet forwarding mechanism (e.g., tunneling) is 
>> supported, not packet routing(e.g. OLSR, DYMO, etc.).
> 
> I agree.
> 
>>     The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the addressing 
>> model
>>     for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure their
>>     addresses. It is required that such models do not cause problems 
>> for ad
>>     hoc-unaware parts of the system, such as standard applications 
>> running
>>     on an ad hoc node or regular Internet nodes attached to the ad hoc
>>     nodes. This group's effort may include the development of new 
>> protocol
>>     mechanisms, should the existing IP autoconfiguration mechanisms be 
>> found
>>     inadequate. However, the first task of the working group is to 
>> describe
>>     one practical addressing model for ad hoc networks.
>>
>>  
>> What's meaning of practical addressing model ?
>> *Although we already discussed this issue in MANEMO BoF,* *we should 
>> *consider practical scenarios for practical addressing model in real 
>> world I think.
>> The only simplest scenario *can not* satisfy requirements and other 
>> aspects in more complex scenario which include Internet connectivity, 
>> nested pattern, group mobility, wireless coverage, and so on.
>>  
>> I would like suggest to define some requirements for practical scenarios.
>> Then, the simplest scenario also can be considered as a base  topic of 
>> them I think.
> 
> I tend to agree with the approach
> 
> I'm just afraid that defining new requirements may lengthen the process 
> of coming up with a practical addressing model.  I think the word 
> practical is there to just mean that in practice many of us may write an 
> addressing model in a very straightforward manner, which would work in 
> each one's particular case.
> 
> Maybe we could find the practical and easiest simplest most convenient 
> way of a common denominator addressing models for some very simple 
> dynamic networks.

But yes, I agree with you on the necessity to come up with the simplest 
scenario as a base topic for more complex.

Alex