Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Thu, 05 March 2009 12:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D99C3A6945 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:02:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.67
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XcgI7JBzBvn0 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2BA28C1AE for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id n25C2h5D022756 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:02:43 GMT
Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET ( []) by (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id n25C2hcl026418 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:02:43 GMT
Received: from glkms1101.GREENLNK.NET ([]) by glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:02:42 -0000
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([]) by glkms1101.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:02:42 +0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:02:40 -0000
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D01A44724@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
thread-index: Acmc7tiiUEclImn0SFW37TI7C6NxiAAHwq4gAB5mMPA=
References: <> <> <><000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <><1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl><> <007201c99903$c4182c80$4c488580$@nl><> <007b01c99911$907facf0$b17f06d0$@nl><> <009501c99920$92154340$b63fc9c0$@nl><> <003001c99b2c$a3fcf4a0$ebf6dde0$@nl><> <000101c99c3c$3121a870$9364f950$@nl><><><><><><> <><><><><> <7FB7EE0A621BA! 44B8B69E5>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <>, "Alexandru Petrescu" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2009 12:02:42.0638 (UTC) FILETIME=[49D2F6E0:01C99D8A]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:02:17 -0000

Stan Ratliff
> At this point, I feel that we're in a discussion that
> is becoming more and more circular, and therefore,
> dysfunctional.

This discussion has certainly derailed. My last posting
agreeing with everything Stan said in an earlier posting
than the one I'm quoting unfortunately got lost (at my end).

I think there's a need to cut a lot of the chaff away.
While there are details that are still open for discussion
(otherwise this would have all happened long ago) I think
it should be possible to agree on some ground rules,
especially with regard to L2, that have rough consensus,
and unless multiple people (not just one person) come
back wanting to discuss the issue, we just don't.

Obviously I can't specify a list of such details, as I'm
just one contributor. But I think that such a list would

- L2 agnostic, within the limitations of the following
  points. Thus although systems such as IEEE 802.11 are
  important examples, they have no privileged place.

- Wireless systems are the reason for MANETs. But MANETs
  can also use wired links, and some wireless links that
  are much better behaved, while still allowing for the
  more difficult cases also to be covered.

- The differing characteristics of those wireless links compared
  to e.g. an Ethernet have to be allowed for. The characteristics
  that MANET routing protocols are designed to handle need to be
  part of the design. This includes non-transitive links and
  non-symmetric local broadcast transmissions at the least.

Those aren't carefully thought out wordings, and they certainly
aren't complete (the more we can add and retain rough consensus
the better). But they would mean, if we can come to such a
consensus, that we just don't get trapped down cul-de-sacs like
only 802.11, listing specific L2 technologies, and 25m ranges,
and spend our effort usefully elsewhere.

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.