Re: [Autoconf] new charter

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 27 February 2009 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 78A183A6803 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:49:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.733
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.733 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.313, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
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 HGM1nJg7P+LB for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:49:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtpo-eml06.kpnxchange.com (cpsmtpo-eml06.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F0483A67EC for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:49:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml101.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.84.101]) by cpsmtpo-eml06.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:49:47 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml101.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:49:47 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: "'Alexandru Petrescu'" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <7E8A76F7-2CE0-463A-8EE8-8877C46B4715@gmail.com> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost><49A7BB89.5040807@gmail.com> <003901c998cb$42b71e90$c8255bb0$@nl><49A7E97A.2010503@gmail.com> <006801c998fd$06c5bd60$14513820$@nl> <49A8272D.2060400@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C48@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49A83172.70105@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A83172.70105@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:49:46 +0100
Message-ID: <007d01c99914$8b337210$a19a5630$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmZCZWTvqIpMD6LSL+DuA64x37yHAACqRWQ
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 19:49:47.0573 (UTC) FILETIME=[8B822E50:01C99914]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
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, 27 Feb 2009 19:49:26 -0000

|-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|Van: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
|Verzonden: vrijdag 27 februari 2009 19:31
|Aan: Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
|CC: Alexandru Petrescu; Teco Boot; autoconf@ietf.org
|Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
|
|Stan Ratliff (sratliff) a écrit :
|>>
|>> Well I agree the physical laws are so.  But I disagree to have 25km
|>>  MANETs in the Charter.  I agree with "25m IPv6 subnets", if they
|>> were explicitely stated so in the charter.
|>>
|>> Alex
|>>
|>
|> And I'll have to disagree with the "25m subnets". I regularly deal
|> with line-of-sight radio links that are in excess of 25km. We can't
|> limit ourselves to short-range technologies (e.g. Commercial 802.11,
|>  Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc). I don't believe a distance should be
|> explicitly stated in the charter, rather, some verbiage that talks
|> about "radio neighbors in range" should be sufficient.
|
|I wouldn't disagree with a Charter mentioning we deal with 25m IPv6
|subnets and with 30.000km IPv6 subnets, and here are the two practical
|methods to put addresses on these nodes.
|
|But I would disagree with a Charter saying we deal with all wireless
|links ranging from personal area to sattellite and everything in between
|  and the generic addressing model is the following...

Why? I did not see a WG charter or RFC before, mentioning such. Check for
example RFC2464. It does not specify the length of a Cat5 cable, nor
10Base5, 10Base2 etc.


Teco.

|
|Alex