Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> Fri, 23 July 2010 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.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 143303A69CE for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.956
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ijGGp8ZPxOgo for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ukmta3.baesystems.com (ukmta3.baesystems.com [20.133.40.55]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C592A3A6992 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,246,1278284400"; d="scan'208";a="78035322"
Received: from unknown (HELO baemasodc004.greenlnk.net) ([10.108.36.11]) by Baemasodc001ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2010 09:44:11 +0100
Received: from glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET (glkms1103.greenlnk.net [10.108.36.194]) by baemasodc004.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o6N8iBkX031357; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:44:11 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.93]) by glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:44:11 +0100
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:44:09 +0100
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FBE3@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
thread-topic: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
thread-index: Acsp0sl4OzULv8CuQPqRixdRnvZAZAAb/zrgAAAR9UA=
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net><4C2CFADD.3040909@piuha.net> <4C378C29.2040302@oracle.com> <323812CA-4C8B-4469-AA6C-0D65191F2735@sensinode.com> <CA71B05E-5CE0-45ED-8292-398136640025@gmail.com> <AANLkTikS7QyebdP6jOXDIM-cm2vE87VgSWFAq6d6PL0v@mail.gmail.com><4C46EFC8.6020501@piuha.net> <4C48144D.4040105@gmail.com><E88A7B1C-7E79-4F0D-9E70-098D649953AB@thomasclausen.org> <4C4815B4.6020907@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FA4C@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C485E37.3080808@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FAC3@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C4899AD.4030808@gmail.com>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2010 08:44:11.0013 (UTC) FILETIME=[388CFB50:01CB2A43]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
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: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:43:55 -0000

Sorry, hit return to quickly. My second paragraph should have
said 

Whether the visibility matters can be argued. That the visibility
occurs cannot.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
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: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) 
Sent: 23 July 2010 09:43
To: 'Alexandru Petrescu'
Cc: Thomas Heide Clausen; autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

If you are using the addresses even in NHDP, or even in a
single neighbour cut-done NHDP that has link bidirectionality
checking then they are so visible. And the point of this work
is to create addresses that are so usable.

Whether the visibility matters can be argued. That the visibility
occurs is not the case.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
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: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com] 
Sent: 22 July 2010 20:19
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Thomas Heide Clausen; autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)


                    *** 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.
 

Le 22/07/2010 17:41, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit :
> And then those link local addresses are visible beyond their local
> link.

No, my point is not understood.  The link-local addresses are not
visible beyond their local link.

When the MRs in LFN--MR--MR--MR--LFN use their link-local addresses
these are not visible beyond their respective local link.

> For some that is a problem. For others not.

If they were visible - yes, it would have been a problem, but they are not.

> All of which is irrelevant to the matter in the subject line, where
> the decision is long (though longer would have been better) made.
> Re-hashing the last N years debate gets no one anywhere.

How about if during the last N years my message could not get read?

Alex

>



********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************