Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications

"Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> Tue, 24 August 2010 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
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 1F9BC3A69D4 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.16
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.439, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 eoPoEPJGRDeZ for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45493A6A0A for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=FT+guz78MT7P/h3h0Yd6IsVf4Z9AN0sK2I9CbzfYzfdGoSuPbiihHa5zsfroNg5o; 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 [12.204.153.98] (helo=[10.166.130.63]) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1OnzGJ-0001bw-Sk; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:34:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4C741EBB.8060909@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:34:19 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
References: <AANLkTi=MZORvNSW7wHdHYOzkOwNZojBars26GfSPgWc9@mail.gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f5272d2c486eab8a7ec928bcf7c9f45af6d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 12.204.153.98
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
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: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:34:25 -0000

Hello Chris,

A node can easily participate in an ad hoc network
without running OLSR or DYMO or any routing protocol.
Why make the restriction?  I don't understand the value
proposition of disenfranchising so many users and
invalidating so many use cases.

On 8/24/2010 1:55 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

> a node has been defined as a router plus possible hosts. If you've got
> a wireless device that wants to participate in a MANET it needs to be
> running an ad hoc routing protocol, i.e. it's a router.

Well, opinions vary here, to say the least.

>                                                  It may perform
> only a limited subset of routing functions - consider for example an
> OLSR node that does not wish to be a relay, only an endpoint.

I can agree, because the null set is a subset of any set.
Do you call a node that implements a null subset of the routing
functions to be a router?

>                       It can
> do that by setting WILLINGNESS equal to zero, and if it is built only
> to take such a role it can then throw away large chunks of OLSR code
> (for example it never sends TC messages). But the node still has some
> router functions.

For instance, could you name one?

>            This is the model of both RFC 2501 and 5889-to-be.
> The host can then get its addresses in any non-MANET-specific way on
> that node.

You didn't say why the node has to be a router, except by
pure dint of the logic that it has to be a router.

I don't find that terribly convincing -- and, I do find
it pretty harmful to the prospects of ad hoc networks.

RFC 2501 says:

>                                               ....       a set
>    of nodes--which may be combined routers and hosts--themselves form
>    the network routing infrastructure in an ad hoc fashion.

Let's take it as given that the routers in a MANET are the
nodes that establish the network connectivity (when possible).

Where does it say that a node that DOES NOT do this is then
disqualified for residence in an ad hoc network?

Regards,
Charlie P.