Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:34:19 -0700
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>

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.