Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 23 July 2010 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 381B53A67F1 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.091
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 Ml2cVwIxoBfD for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EB43A67DA for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o6N80gs5012605 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:00:42 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o6N80gqY003358; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:00:42 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o6N80gqp025575; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:00:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4C494C29.5020004@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:00:41 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FAC3@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C4899AD.4030808@gmail.com> <201007230723.58638.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <4C494806.5060609@gmail.com> <1D0FFC66-A4C6-4E7E-A7C5-13156A9B37A3@thomasclausen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1D0FFC66-A4C6-4E7E-A7C5-13156A9B37A3@thomasclausen.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
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, 23 Jul 2010 08:00:33 -0000

Le 23/07/2010 09:47, Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :
>
> On Jul 23, 2010, at 09:43 , Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>
>> Le 23/07/2010 07:23, Henning Rogge a écrit :
>>> On Thu July 22 2010 21:19:09 Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>> Le 22/07/2010 17:41, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit :
>>>>> And then those link local addresses are visible beyond their
>>>>> local link.
>>>>
>>>> No, my point is not understood.  The link-local addresses are
>>>> not visible beyond their local link.
>>>>
>>>> When the MRs in LFN--MR--MR--MR--LFN use their link-local
>>>> addresses these are not visible beyond their respective local
>>>> link.
>>>
>>> You just have shown that you don't understand what a wireless
>>> MANET (with multihop links, without most people would not
>>> consider it a MANET) is.
>>
>> Ulrich, I do make efforts to understand what you understand.  PArt
>>  of this effort is to refrain the temptation of claiming you don't
>>  understand what I don't understand.
>>
>>> if each of the MRs use a wireless interface, the linklocals WILL
>>>  BE VISIBLE outside their direct link.
>>
>> Well, the link local addresses will not be visible outside their
>> direct link, because the different links are on different ESSIDs
>> and moreover on different channels.
>
> That is the crux of your misunderstanding. They may, in your case, be
> -- in most MANET cases, they're not.

Thomas - help me remove this crux.

Could we make an AUTOCONF non-MANET case where the link local addresses
are not visible across different wireless links.

Otherwise, could we be stating in the Charter that AUTOCONF deals _only_
with MANET cases where link local addresses are visible in all radio
ranges, links undefined, no WiFi ESSID nor similar.  Which by your
definition is 'most MANET cases'.  You mentioned it several times - it
deserves being in the Charter.

Both ways would help me a lot: in the first I stay in the group, present
at meeting.  In the second I go away.

Alex

>
> Thomas
>
>
>> Using wireshark on IP packets on these different links shows that
>> the link local addressess are not visible from one link to
>> another.
>>
>> When you say visible - what do you mean?  I mean "not visible" to
>> the IP stack.
>>
>>> There is no way to prevent this.
>>
>> YEs there is - use different ESSIDs and, for more insurance, use
>> different channels and different keys.  That is for WiFi.  For
>> other technologies (3G+, LTE, Bluetooth) there are other link layer
>> means such as pdp context and more.
>>
>>> Because multiple links share interfaces in a non-transitive
>>> manner
>>
>> Well yes, at link layer level.  But link layers have their
>> protocols which help build understandable links to the IP stack.
>>
>>> (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation).
>>
>> Uh?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Henning Rogge
>>>
>>
>>
>
>