Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)

Henning Rogge <> Thu, 05 August 2010 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226FC3A6A1B for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.293
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.949, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qJ1L7ZUFuMm2 for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:401:102:1aa9:5ff:fe5f:7f22]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D0C3A6803 for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1Ogvyk-0001ry-JM; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:39:06 +0200
Received: from ([] helo=stream.localnet) by with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1Ogvyk-00049z-Av; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:39:06 +0200
From: Henning Rogge <>
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:38:57 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-24-generic; KDE/4.4.5; i686; ; )
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3038014.DXJvR9nlCd"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.96.1/11501/Thu Aug 5 07:36:49 2010) by
X-Scan-Signature: b17092e937cef22d8bf42b2c04946c57
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
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 Aug 2010 08:38:40 -0000

On Wed August 4 2010 15:07:14 Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> Hello Henning,
> On 8/3/2010 10:55 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:
> > If you run a part of the routing protocol to connect the "host" to the
> > MANET, it's a router in my oppinion (Ripple would call it a leaf node
> > for example).
> What if your host gets an address by running
> "autoconf.exe", which is not a routing program?
Does your host set up a route towards the next router and maintains it if the 
topology data from the router changes ? If yes I would say it's a primitive 
router too. If no, it's not.

> > If the node just use DHCP or similar protocols to get it's address
> > without being modified to work with the MANET, it's no router (and don't
> > need the autoconf address model).
> What if the host does not?  Or, do you mean to say
> that this discussion is a way to legislate that all
> hosts must use DHCP?
I don't think I ever said this. I just presented an example that the address 
model is not necessary for running a node in a MANET that use the autoconf 
address model.

Yes, you CAN use it... but you don't need to.

> > The autoconf model is NOT the only way for a host to get an address for
> > connection to a MANET.
> The autoconf model for getting addresses doesn't exist.
> I sure hope it isn't the only way to get an address.
> But suppose at some point there is an autoconf.exe.
> It should be a way for a host to get an address.
> Its connection to the MANET would, presumably allow
> it to use this address.  Or, do you mean to say that
> "address allocation" == "connection"?
I don't see any reason why an autoconfiguration protocol developed by this 
group would only run on interfaces of routers.

> > If you have a router with a policy that limits the routers functionality
> > (in terms of the routing protocol), you could just write a
> > compact/optimized version of the needed software part for it.
> main()
> {
> 	system ("get_address");
> 	if (routing) fail();   /* My compact routing code */
> }
> Am I a router?
I don't see any routing code of a routing protocol. But I don't see your 
problem too.

> >>> It should be done on the routers (but MANETs can and have been run
> >>> with different address models), and it could be used for hosts closely
> >>> attached to a MANET, but it's not necessary to do so.
> >> 
> >> What is "it"?
> > 
> > The autoconf address model should be used on routers (but you could use a
> > different one) and it (the address model) could be used on hosts attached
> > to a MANET, but it's not necessary to use the autoconf address model on
> > hosts.
> It's necessary for hosts to adhere to the
> considerations detailed in the address model
> document.  I'm not sure if this is the same
> as "using" it.
It might be necessary, depending on what software the host is running.

> >>> But in my opinion it is still better it's still better to restrict the
> >>> title as suggested in the WG meeting consensus that to make it too
> >>> generic.
> >> 
> >> I can't imagine any non-political reason whatsoever for this.
> > 
> > If we do otherwise we could have the same problems. People would say "you
> > demand that any computer attached to your MANET use the autoconf address
> > model. But we have to use DHCP, so your address model is wrong."
> This is a political argument not based on the needs
> of the addressability, connectivity, or goals of
> making an ad hoc network.  Insofar as you may be
> nonetheless correct, I begin to believe that I have
> zero insight into the technical goals of the discussion.
> > (I don't say they are right, but we will get people with strange comments
> > on the address model with both titles)
> Please tell me if my comments are "strange".
I think the problem you stated is that people can say "the title says it's 
only for routers, so it is not enough for my usecase and I need something 

If we not change the title we might get "the title says it's for all nodes, 
but I cannot force my users to install a special interface configuration on 
their smartphones, so I need something different."

There are nodes in MANET that are a grey area between host and router. Because 
of this we cannot make a clear statement on what nodes the autoconf address 
model should be used.

Most of the WG seems to think it's better to restrict the scope a little bit 
more and let people use it for other things than the defined scope if they 
think it's right (at least that's how I understand the consensus of the 

Henning Rogge
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0