IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] new charter

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Fri, 27 February 2009 21:13 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 092093A68AB for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:13:00 -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 WXU+yXEATtPj for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:12:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC6F3A657C for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:12:41 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,278,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="148553214"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2009 21:13:04 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1RLD4C3028941; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:13:04 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1RLD3Jl006253; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:13:04 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 16:13:03 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:13:03 -0500
Message-ID: <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0D5F@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A8531A.3020404@gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] new charter
Thread-Index: AcmZHcMuiDangreJRsm1P7a4wBZSGAAAaDeg
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> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C70@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49A84285.5030103@nps.navy.mil> <49A8531A.3020404@gmail.com>
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, Rex Buddenberg <budden@nps.navy.mil>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 21:13:03.0992 (UTC) FILETIME=[2D9B3780:01C99920]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1987; t=1235769184; x=1236633184; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; 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; bh=5Exwb4ctGLmtVrjOvVOpxWfEUQfo3MmqnAp/9/iWAv4=; b=JEj/3e+NSzOrh1PiJ16BqNTDgBzxqEa8+jWYrvl5SHNLz7Xi3NQ1SvcSRt +b419RB347UbofJX0r5BYcf7jCj6GLMXGQSvWdhskotn9jLE9ReXtoOihQJq ee+wAClbd+;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=sratliff@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 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 21:13:00 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 3:55 PM
> To: Rex Buddenberg
> Cc: Stan Ratliff (sratliff); Alexandru Petrescu; autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
> 
> Rex Buddenberg a écrit :
> > Stan,
> > 
> > The difference is not geo footprint (you got that right).  
> Rather the 
> > difference is between LAN (at fringe of network) and WAN (in the 
> > interior).  A WAN will always be at least one router away 
> from end systems.
> > While we're at it, references to SSIDs is not proper -- that's 
> > 802.11-specific.
> 
> 802.11-specific because that's what many people actually 
> mean.  "Ad-hoc" 
> type of SSID is there for same reason.  Many MANET 
> experiments happened with 802.11 links.  Wireless LANs, 
> WaveLAN, all are in scope and deserve mentioning.  They're 
> the building blocks out of which MANETs can come up.
> 
> For LOS satcom communications: if I knew the precise names 
> then I could find the manner in which they (or their admins) 
> configure their IPv6 addresses.
> 
> I'm specifically keeping out of MANET 802.15.4 (akin to WPAN) 
> because there seems to be an IPv6 ND draft for this link 
> which already has its own address autoconfiguration quirks.
> 
> For WMAN: I'm aware of 802.16 and it has its own already IETF 
> specified means of forming IPv6 addresses.
> 
> In this landscape, I'm not sure how could Autoconf practical 
> way of forming addresses not mention WiFi.
> 
> Alex
> 

Alex, 

None of the MANET networks I deploy are based on WiFi. I think that turning the discussion into one that is 802.11-centric is not a good idea -- it's analogous to our earlier discussion on distance of the radio link. Why should the Layer 2 protocol in use effect the selection of Layer 3 addresses? 

Regards,
Stan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email