Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing (was: new charter)

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 27 February 2009 18:05 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 0B91928C365 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:05:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.754
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.754 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.292, 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 F9mlD4TFP0iD for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml17.kpnxchange.com (hpsmtp-eml17.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E249B28C1BF for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml102.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.84.102]) by hpsmtp-eml17.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:05:36 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml102.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:05:36 +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> <49A82694.8090801@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A82694.8090801@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:05:35 +0100
Message-ID: <007a01c99905$fd1619a0$f7424ce0$@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: AcmZAxrH8J0z5mHeT162ZLZ1sYi7CAAAWhYQ
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 18:05:36.0777 (UTC) FILETIME=[FDBE6790:01C99905]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing (was: 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 18:05:18 -0000

Inline.

|-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|Van: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
|Verzonden: vrijdag 27 februari 2009 18:45
|Aan: Teco Boot
|CC: autoconf@ietf.org
|Onderwerp: Re: practical addressing (was: [Autoconf] new charter)
|
|[Thanks for the details Linux/Vista/IOS routing tables!  I didn't know
|  all that, only for linux]
|
|Teco Boot a écrit :
|>>> Routers may generate a /128 prefix-address, and advertize this in
|>>>  the routing domain.
|>
|>> A host-based route propagated and deleted throughout a domain? I
|>> don't see the necessity of doing so. Assuming the routers are
|>> mobile within 25m ranges then they wouldn't need to change their
|>> addresses, thus no need to propagate host-based routes.
|>
|> If the /128 is not propagated, there will be no multi-hop network.
|
|Well I disagree.  In the multi-hop network below only /64 prefixes are
|present in Routers' routing tables, no /128 (host-based) routes:
|
|
|   -----  wifi "adhoc1"  ------  wifi "adhoc2"  ------- "adhoc3"-----
|  |Host1|---------------|Router|---------------|Router2|-------|Host2|
|   ----- LL1    P1   LL2 ------ LL3   P2   LL4  -------LL5 P3  LL6---
|         G1                                                    G4
|
|           P1, P2, P3: /64 prefixes, such as:
|                       2001:db8:1::/64
|                       2001:db8:2::/64 and
|                       2001:db8:3::/64
|
|Would this kind of use of /64 prefixes alleviate the need to
|propagate/delete /128 prefixes throughout the network?

Your routers need two wifi interfaces. Often, there is only one wifi
interface. The MANET Routing protocol provides connectivity between nodes
that are out of range from each other, via relay nodes that are in range.

Using many distinct SSIDs can introduce problems, e.g. Host-1 and Host-2 are
near each other, but on a different SSID:


  -------  wifi "adhoc1"  -----   ????   -----  "adhoc2" --------
 |Router1|---------------|Host1|--/  /--|Host2|---------|Router2|
  ------- LL2    P1     LL1 ---          ----LL6   P2  LL6------
                        G1                   G4

Router1 and Router2 are out of range. So R1 <--> H2 and H1 <--> R2.
Host1 MUST communicate to Host2, this is critical (live or dead).


Teco.



|Alex