IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.

Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Tue, 29 June 2010 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
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 F25D33A6BC7 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.453
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.308, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905]
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 ZUBeXdwsZfbk for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailguard.fgan.de (mailguard.fkie.fraunhofer.de [IPv6:2001:638:401:102:1aa9:5ff:fe5f:7f22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90E63A6BC6 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufsun5.fkie.fgan.de ([128.7.2.5] helo=mailhost.fgan.de) by mailguard.fgan.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1OTaAl-0001mw-G4; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:44:19 +0200
Received: from stream.fkie.fgan.de ([128.7.5.148] helo=stream.localnet) by mailhost.fgan.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1OTaAl-0005PL-7e; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:44:19 +0200
From: Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
To: autoconf@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:44:15 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.32-22-generic; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )
References: <BFD8FF22-FD36-436E-9985-7BFA2E234081@gmail.com> <201006290803.34192.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <4C29E861.4080706@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C29E861.4080706@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2703990.rfFdGsWzqe"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201006291444.15951.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.96.1/11279/Tue Jun 29 14:08:44 2010) by mailguard.fgan.de
X-Scan-Signature: ad1983844cdfc65af3eaa1381589e1d9
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] 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: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:44:14 -0000

On Tue June 29 2010 14:34:41 Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> > I don't think elections are a good way to add redundancy for an address
> > configuration system. The dependency of a single node in the whole
> > network to configure the addresses will be a bottleneck for larger mesh
> > networks.
> 
> But elections is what gets rid of central node bottlenecks... if that
> single node fails then elect another.
Elections are a real complex thing in MANETs, better have redundancy and "no 
bottlenecks" by allowing multiple redundant address providers.
 
> > I don't see a difference between 1 and 2, for IPv6 case 1 is just case 2
> > with a prefix length of 128 (or 64 if we use the IPv6 autoconf postfix).
> 
> To my quick reading 2) does prefixes too whereas 1) does addresses only.
Which make it a waste of time to develop sollution 1, because it's only a 
special case of sollution 2.

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
mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email