Re: [Autoconf] Another addressing model for AUTOCONF

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 23/07/2010 14:19, Ulrich Herberg a écrit :
> Alex,
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
> <[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>
>> Le 23/07/2010 12:58, Teco Boot a écrit :
>>>
>>> Alex,
>>>
>>> Quick comments: Your example 2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24 share a
>>> common prefix.
>>
>> WEll no, they are different prefixes, as implemented by IP stacks,
>> as considered by the routing tables and their lookup algorithms,
>> as considered by the ND tables.
>
>
> 2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24 are short forms for 2001:0001::/24 and
> 2001:0002::/24 (as defined in rfc2373)
>
> So, I have to agree with Teco.  Maybe you meant 2001:100::/24 and
> 2001:200::/24?

Ah right... wrong notation in the slide.

(fyi in implementation we have 2002:0:8::/64 and then 9 and 10 instead
of 8 - it's that /64 distinguishing them).

Thanks for the remark I will update them.

Alex

>
> Ulrich
>
>>
>>> Better use 2001:1::/32 and 2001:2::/32 or longer, e.g. /64.
>>
>> Why 32 instead of 24?
>>
>>> On your presso: I would not use same ssid on APs in all
>>> vehicles. (slide 2, essid: "V3").
>>
>> Thanks for the comment.  It would indeed be good to have different
>> ESSIDs within vehicles, in order to prevent potential
>> interference.
>>
>>
>>> And I dislike the address spoofing mode, suggested in slide 4.
>>> So it so +1 on others remarks.
>>>
>>> Teco.
>>>
>>>
>>> Op 22 jul 2010, om 23:01 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende
>>> geschreven:
>>>
>>>> Addressing model we use, pdf 300Kb:
>>>>
>>>> http://dl.free.fr/m95j1Km7a (the username is left empty and
>>>> password is 'password', without quotes.  File stays there for
>>>> 30 days.)
>>>>
>>>> Teco asked whether my draft contains an addressing model...
>>>> true - it doesn't show so obviously
>>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-00).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
I said that there is an addressing model in this figure of the draft:
>>>>>
>>>>> egress|              |egress ----     ----    ---- ----
>>>>> ----    ---- | LFN|   |LFN |  | MR |            | MR |   |LFN
>>>>> |  |LFN | ----     ----    ----              ---- ----
>>>>> ---- |        | ingress|              |ingress   | |
>>>>> ---------------------             ---------------------
>>>>> 2001:1::/24                       2001:2::/24
>>>>
>>>> ThomasC and Chris also expressed doubts with respect to
>>>> LFN--MR--MR--LFN topology and link-local addresses; let me
>>>> explain further.
>>>>
>>>> We are using this addressing model on several moving networks.
>>>> See the pdf at the beginning of this email. They show MR-to-MR
>>>> with a single addressing scheme, then with a double addressing
>>>> scheme; (double is necessary for our plan.)
>>>>
>>>> And then a slide shows MR-to-MR-to-MR addressing model.
>>>>
>>>> There are some scalability remarks and a route propagation
>>>> model (pencil and paper).
>>>>
>>>> The mechanism has been prototyped and demoed since about one
>>>> year now, on three Mobile Routers and a bunch of LFNs, which
>>>> shows it may work. We have great plans for demoing on
>>>> vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> This is an addressing model we consider strongly. It needs
>>>> later to auto-configure some prefixes, because currently MNPs
>>>> are pre-configured in each moving network (this is the case in
>>>> some deployments).
>>>>
>>>> This addressing model is important to us, and uses link-local
>>>> addresses.
>>>>
>>>> Alex _______________________________________________ Autoconf
>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
>> list [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>