IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Tue, 24 August 2010 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 3C6D03A6A77 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 w6xKbNI76GBM for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4043A69E6 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so3935435eyd.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.22.133 with SMTP id n5mr5937136ebb.64.1282678472387; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.166] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u9sm674929eeh.5.2010.08.24.12.34.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <7ir5hoc4wq.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:34:29 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <09E9600F-B654-4533-901A-6CA1EEA100DF@inf-net.nl>
References: <AANLkTi=MZORvNSW7wHdHYOzkOwNZojBars26GfSPgWc9@mail.gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <7ir5hoc4wq.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <Juliusz.Chroboczek@pps.jussieu.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>, reshmi r <reshmi.engg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
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, 24 Aug 2010 19:36:02 -0000

You enter the twilight zone here.
I say nodes that run routing protocols, and send routing protocol
packets, are routers. Others say these are hosts, if the nodes don't
forward packets.
Snooping the routing protocol is a corner case, I am OK if host could 
do this. The problem here is, when a host has no on-link prefix, how 
can other nodes know the host is reachable? 

Teco

Op 24 aug 2010, om 19:11 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek het volgende geschreven:

>> consider for example an OLSR node that does not wish to be a relay,
>> only an endpoint. It can do that by setting WILLINGNESS equal to zero,
>> and if it is built only to take such a role it can then throw away
>> large chunks of OLSR code (for example it never sends TC messages).
> 
> What you're describing is not a router.  It's a host that's snooping on
> a routing protocol.
> 
>                                        Juliusz
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email