Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Thu, 05 March 2009 13:43 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 A69A93A6ACC for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:43:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.738
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.308, 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 o3B4oTuEEof2 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml18.kpnxchange.com (hpsmtp-eml18.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.118]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1261228C33A for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:42:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml102.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.84.102]) by hpsmtp-eml18.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:43:14 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml102.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:43:14 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: "'Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)'" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl><49A7E58C.2020303@gmail.com> <007201c99903$c4182c80$4c488580$@nl><49A82E55.10208@gmail.com> <007b01c99911$907facf0$b17f06d0$@nl><49A8471E.6090506@gmail.com> <009501c99920$92154340$b63fc9c0$@nl><49A944FF.9000102@gmail.com> <003001c99b2c$a3fcf4a0$ebf6dde0$@nl><49AD5184.6080300@gmail.com> <000101c99c3c$3121a870$9364f950$@nl><49AD9760.3080909@gmail.com> <49AD98D4.3@earthlink.net><49AD9EA8.6040803@gmail.com> <49ADA17B.9040600@earthlink.net><49ADAF7C.1050509@gmail.com> <49ADB9FB.6050600@earthlink.net><49AE3A3A.5000305@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407B5D783@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49AE9827.5090309@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407B5D803@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49AEBA6D.7030903@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407B5DB1F@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com><49AF97FA.70200! 07@gmail.com><002201c99d76$017d4b20$0477e160$@nl> <49AFAA15.90 6! 0905@gmai l.com> <00 3a01c99d8e$f47ba2f0$dd72e8d0$@nl> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D01A447A3@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D01A447A3@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:43:14 +0100
Message-ID: <004901c99d98$55754b70$005fe250$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmdfZtfl2cSE9SrQ+m8mQENYhi63wAAxAAQAASRqcAAALfewA==
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2009 13:43:14.0411 (UTC) FILETIME=[550A7BB0:01C99D98]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, 'Thomas Heide Clausen' <Thomas@ThomasClausen.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:43:26 -0000

|> As long as the LL is unique on the link.
|> So the following topology is valid:
|
|> +----------+                        +----------+
|> |          |fe80::1/64              |          |
|> |          +========================+          |
|> | router 1 |              fe80::2/64| router 2 |
|> |          |fe80::1/64              |          |
|> |          +========================+          |
|> |          |              fe80::2/64|          |
|> +----------+                        +----------+
|
|> Agreed on this?
|
|I'm withholding any judgement on that.
|
|> Maybe the OLSR / NHDP design team needs to verify their design on this
|> topology.
|
|That is a problem for OLSR / NHDP which assumes (one or more)
|distinct IP addresses on separate interfaces.

This scenario is not uncommon, where VLANs are used.
Questions are:
Do we want OLSR / NHDP to support VLANs? I think so.
Do we want to introduce a new requirement for MAC addresses for VLANs, being
unique? I don't think so.
Or deprecate EUI-64 used as InterfaceID, e.g. use randomized addresses?

This last one is a bit black/white. NHDP could check uniqueness of local
interface addresses, and generate and configure other addresses if needed.
Not sure on going that way. Use NHDP_InterfaceIDs that are not configured
addresses ? (like OSPF)

I don't prefer a requirement using globally unique addresses for all transit
links being used by OLSR / NHDP.

Teco.