Re: [Autoconf] new charter

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Fri, 27 February 2009 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <sratliff@cisco.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 6318E28C367 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:20:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 3of8Avgb1-do for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B0D28C35E for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:20:26 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,277,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="38676897"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2009 18:20:49 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1RIKngO013432; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:20:49 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1RIKn7q008559; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:20:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.43]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:20:48 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:20:47 -0500
Message-ID: <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C48@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A8272D.2060400@gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] new charter
Thread-Index: AcmZA4D7GvOj98TgRN+fRurNRpYVsAAA95Nw
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>
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 18:20:48.0982 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D75D760:01C99908]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3777; t=1235758849; x=1236622849; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sratliff@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Stan=20Ratliff=20(sratliff)=22=20<sratliff@cisc o.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Autoconf]=20new=20charter |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Alexandru=20Petrescu=22=20<alexandru.petrescu@gma il.com>,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22Teco=20Boot=22=20<teco @inf-net.nl>; bh=X/ZkGa3ob9JYNKN3s+vsmS8Od2H7mWLHj40ummVwtjc=; b=Q/JPXuLot9xtX/VYnzB/PbSdpAV3bKEfHmFiTh1OLw0KDT8KbcArp31GwH SSP03eMJnYPNRuwR4q3ymjQB+GQ0sqeMJockT8mDHNKmk6ECmne15selNrKu 86PFYVRPfo;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=sratliff@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
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 18:20:28 -0000

Inline. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 12:47 PM
> To: Teco Boot
> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
> 
> Teco Boot wrote:
> > In a MANET, I expect nodes to run a MANET Routing protocol 
> and forward 
> > packets.
> 
> Well I agree with the last part: MANET nodes do forward 
> packets.  But I don't agree with the first part: in a MANET I 
> could configure static routes, not necessarily running a 
> MANET routing protocol.
> 
> > In ad hoc networks, one (you ?) would say nodes could be hosts or 
> > Mobile Routers acting as hosts.
> 
> Yes.  If the future charter rules these kinds of MANET 
> networks which are non-MANET-routing-protocol then I'll go away :-)
> 
> > |Do you agree we consider routers mobile only within 25m ranges?
> > 
> > Absolutely not. For me, 25km is a reasonable distance!
> 
> But is that MANET?  Or is it just a 25km subnet?
> 
> > Just 10^3 times the distance and 10^6 times the power per 
> bit (single
> > hop) or 10^3 times the power per bit if multi-hop is 
> enabled (and 1000 
> > intermediate nodes....). Just physical laws here.
> 
> 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. 

Regards,
Stan


> 
> Proposed charter pasted below:
> J. Arkko wrote earlier:
> > Description of Working Group:
> > 
> > In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
> > 2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local 
> > addresses that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may 
> > also need to configure globally routable addresses, in order to 
> > communicate with devices on the Internet. From the IP layer 
> > perspective, an ad hoc network presents itself as a L3 multi-hop 
> > network formed over a collection of links.
> > 
> > The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the addressing 
> > model for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure 
> > their addresses. It is required that such models do not 
> cause problems 
> > for ad hoc-unaware parts of the system, such as standard 
> applications 
> > running on an ad hoc node or regular Internet nodes 
> attached to the ad 
> > hoc nodes. This group's effort may include the development of new 
> > protocol mechanisms, should the existing IP autoconfiguration 
> > mechanisms be found inadequate. However, the first task of 
> the working 
> > group is to describe one practical addressing model for ad hoc 
> > networks.
> > 
> > Once this sole work item is completed, the group can be 
> rechartered to 
> > work on additional issues.
> > 
> > Goals and Milestones:
> > 
> > Apr 2009 Submit initial draft on address configuration in ad hoc 
> > networks Sep 2009 Submit address configuration draft to IESG as 
> > Informational or close WG.
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>