Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> Tue, 03 March 2009 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
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 6C6713A6869 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:19:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
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 CXU1JywSvvkH for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89AC13A67F6 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:19:10 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=STz8m96yjUEbuW+kzc0B/VVKLaeTqjBZnbG+f63CWZ5b8ET3N+xXJ0I6VbzUOUis; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.51.129.145] (helo=[10.166.254.146]) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1Leb5V-0003mJ-D9; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:19:37 -0500
Message-ID: <49AD90D9.5040100@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:19:37 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
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> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl> <49A7E58C.2020303@gmail.com> <007201c99903$c4182c80$4c488580$@nl> <49A82E55.10208@gmail.com> <007b01c99911$907facf0$b17f06d0$@nl> <49A8471E.6090506@gmail.com> <009501c99920$92154340$b63fc9c0$@nl> <49A944FF.9000102@gmail.com> <003001c99b2c$a3fcf4a0$ebf6dde0$@nl> <49AD5184.6080300@gmail.com> <000101c99c3c$3121a870$9364f950$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <000101c99c3c$3121a870$9364f950$@nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f526b8bbecdbb6263feaeb0d17d81573c06350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.51.129.145
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
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, 03 Mar 2009 20:19:11 -0000

Hello Teco,

How was it already decided to use loopback addresses?

I hope not, really...

In various implementations of AODV with gateways and
in other situations, even running Mobile IP to infrastructure
home agents, we never used loopback.

What would happen if the "autoconf addressing model"
was the same as the "Internet addressing model"?
Would that really be so bad?  We could have nice
things like "multicast", "anycast", unicast, subnets
and the typical addressing fundamentals that people
already understand.

Don't we just have to make sure that routing updates
inside the MANET network don't pester routers in
the external networks (e.g., Internet)?  I don';t see
why making that assurance should imply that we have
to re-architect the whole Internet addressing model.

Regards,
Charlie P.




Teco Boot wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> As far as I know, you are the first person that came up with problems using
> a loopback interface for globally unique addresses / host prefixes (/128,
> /32) for routers. Please provide good argumentation, otherwise we follow the
> already accepted practice in the routing community, also documented in
> RFC5375 (and others, e.g. RFC3484).
>
> Maybe you should post this in v6ops, not in Autoconf.
>
> Teco.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
>
>