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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 05 March 2009 11:23 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 99C9128C4A6; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 03:23:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.179
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, 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 d8C+7ROiu0QC; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 03:23:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4763528C26F; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 03:23:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nephilia.intra.cea.fr (nephilia.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.33]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id n25BO8IR025582; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:24:08 +0100
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by nephilia.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n25BO7Ei030971; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:24:08 +0100 (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 n25BO7Tt014878; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:24:07 +0100
Message-ID: <49AFB657.9020407@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:24:07 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <20090304163257.82E843A6B2E@core3.amsl.com> <7e8d02d40903041552r5a38bd1dp59ab865c0f463c@mail.gmail.com> <7e8d02d40903050014u556bd7cbof6d7ec2d54901dd4@mail.gmail.com> <49AFAB9F.3050704@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49AFAB9F.3050704@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
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, 05 Mar 2009 11:23:43 -0000

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