Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd:Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org> Fri, 06 August 2010 17:22 UTC
Return-Path: <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
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 932533A6892 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.376
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 bQEmzCmK+doj for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (hgblob.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435003A6879 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B5B3236DB7; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.225.71.210] (unknown [90.84.146.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE5783236DB8; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
References: <4C528979.7010006@oracle.com> <201008040756.04650.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <4C596602.1060308@earthlink.net> <201008051039.03011.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <AANLkTikWgoUHeJsZwWDViVyavWXjvtLfffrosHPcCPya@mail.gmail.com> <4C5B3854.3050706@earthlink.net> <E2946D37-14F1-4DC0-94C3-DC4FE6A3BE79@thomasclausen.org> <4C5C3EC8.50009@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C5C3EC8.50009@earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8A293)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Message-Id: <8C0A8E8A-B26C-4330-9173-94530FEDD350@thomasclausen.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8A293)
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:22:32 +0200
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>, Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd:Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
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, 06 Aug 2010 17:22:58 -0000
Charlie, You suggest a face-to-face meeting. As you know I will be in your neck of the woods next week, so let's discuss, then ... Wg-chair-hat-on: If we do that, we do owe it to the wg to report both the arguments and the outcome of the discussions here on the list, as I believe that both are valuable for the wg. Although (still wearing that hat) I would very much like for as much of the discussions to be in public (ie on the list).... Wg-chair-hat-off: I'll respond in more details later, but I have suitcases to pack ... -- Thomas Clausen http://www.thomasclausen.org/ On 6 août 2010, at 18:56, "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> wrote: > Hello Thomas, > > I said: > >>> Do you _really_ want to exclude hosts from your network? >>> Where will the applications reside? > > You said: > >> User applications (regular user applications) reside on hosts. Hosts are >> accessing the network by way of being connected to (i.e. one IP hop away >> from) a router. > > Of course I do not have a problem with running applications > on MANET routers. I have proposed this for many years -- > and in fact I do not in any way require that the applications > reside on hosts that are one hop away from a router. > > My question was partly in jest -- but I do fully > expect that non-routing hosts will be found in many > or perhaps even most ad hoc networks. For instance, > we will have sensor fields and transmit-only data > aggregators (both of which do not need to be routers, > but are likely to need addresses). I keep thinking > this is totally obvious! > > >> The connectivity between a host and a router is a "classic IP link", >> and there are already excellent protocols in existence for managing >> also autoconfiguration of addresses for hosts on classic IP links. > > My objection has been to disqualify non-routing hosts from receiving > addresses by way of an [autoconf] protocol. There are of course known > protocols (excellent or not, does not matter here) for configuring > "classic hosts" on "classic IP links". I reckon we mean the same > thing by those terms. > > My point is that there are almost certainly going to be non-routing > hosts in <networks whose connectivity is established by MANET routers.> > I would have just said "MANETs", but now we have so little agreement > that we don't even know what a MANET is any more. > > >> The connectivity between routers is.....who knows? Maybe a MANET, >> maybe an OSPF network, maybe an ISIS network, and maybe links between >> routers have "undetermined connectivity properties" -- or not, they >> may be of NBMA or P2P or telepathic nature. However, that's a matter >> for routers to figure out and manage; hosts are exposed to a classic >> IP link and are isolated by an IP hop from any specific connectivity >> properties of the connectivity/links between routers. > > Here I have to disagree. A host may have an 802.11 link to a router, > and be subject to every single last problem of indeterminate range, > interference, link-local ambiguity, and the other concepts which have > proved so difficult for [autoconf] to resolve (regardless of so much > reputable research available). > > And, moreover, it's not up to the "routers". It's up to "us", > because we're designing the routers (at least in [manet] wg, > not in [autoconf]). Moreover, if a MANET router can work better > by transacting new protocol with a host, then (a) the host may > then considered to be something besides a "classic host", and > (b) why not? Let's figure it out. But this does NOT mean that > a network of the abovementioned variety has to REQUIRE changes > to classic hosts; as an example, NEMO has made a lot of changes > but still allows "classic" hosts to reside on mobile networks. > Our situation is a bit different, insofar as mobile wireless hosts > still must pay due respect to the realities of wireless. > > >> Of course, there *may* be applications (for example, the routing demon) >> running on routers and exposed to the specific connectivity properties >> of the connectivity/links between routers. These, and only these >> (non-user) applications should be sufficiently aware of these properties >> to operate correctly. User-applications reside on hosts, separated by >> an IP hop from any "strangeness" between routers, and exposed to >> well-defined properties of a classic IP link. > > > I also disagree with this. Numerous studies have shown that > applications can benefit from knowledge of bit-error rate, > link capacity, jitter, and so on. Of course we'd prefer that > applications not have to pay attention to CDMA vs. 802.11, > etc. Nevertheless, I am sure that in a face-to-face meeting > on this subject we would quickly find that we are in substantially > complete agreement. > > >>>> >> This architectural consideration thus separated the issue of >>>> >> "configuring routers" from the issue of "configuring hosts" in this >>>> >> context, and the rough consensus was that we would first focus on >>>> >> configuring routers. Which lead us to where we are now. > > ... > >> This particular point was discussed - at length - at IETF'67 in 2006 in >> San Diego, where it received (in my recollection) wide consensus; in part >> because of its analogy with the "regular Internet". > > Surely, "configuring" routers and hosts should be > done differently. This does NOT imply: > (a) hosts should be barred from using the address > allocation protocol established for MANET routers, or > (b) hosts should run useless router code in order to > make use of said address allocation protocol, or > (c) the [autoconf] address allocation protocol design > should proceed on the assumption that non-routing > hosts are out of scope. > > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a … Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Stan Ratliff
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Zach Shelby
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Zach Shelby
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 Erik Nordmark
- [Autoconf] Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889 Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Autoconf] Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889 Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Autoconf] Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889 Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Henning Rogge
- [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifica… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router (was: WC consensus… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router (was: WC consensus… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router (was: WC consensus… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router (was: WC consensus… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Rogge Henning
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Emmanuel Baccelli