Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)

"Charles E. Perkins" <> Wed, 04 August 2010 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D243A6767 for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e-bD-dDS5waV for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D0A3A63C9 for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=retfwENvL9D+0B/lfGlPYo0wNqOH1frYnDoAJeenpq3EZeVMbvNhNydzD96udFUi; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1Ogdrq-0000U5-H4; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:18:46 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:18:12 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52c5e4e8962ff5c8bab16d1e088ecd93e4350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
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: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:18:18 -0000

Hello Teco,

On 8/3/2010 11:48 PM, Teco Boot wrote:

> What makes a node a router? (mentioned in meeting, maybe incomplete lsit)
> a) The device MAY forward packets. Even the case if it actually doesn't,
> e.g. the topology is such that no packet is sent to it for forwarding. Many
> OSses have a "Forwarding" config flag. When on, it is a router. This has
> nothing to do with routing protocols.


> b) The device sends out a routing protocol packet.  ...


> c) The device sends out an RA. Hosts MAY NOT do this.



> If a host uses tobe-RFC5889 and only uses a /128 prefix, and other nearby nodes
> also use /128's, there is no connectivity.

What about point-to-point links?

> 1-hop neighbors can't know that the
> host is reachable.

What about point-to-point links?

> I experienced this problem during maintenance or outage of
> the routing protocol, I couldn't remotely repair. That is why I use another
> addressing model, that doesn't has this shortcoming. It supports all types of
> nodes. A big, big difference.

I never experienced this with AODV, which
could use all point-to-point links.

> This is why I support the title change.

I'm still mystified, unless (as Henning opines)
we've strayed into the magical land of politics.

Charlie P.