Re: [Autoconf] new charter

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> Mon, 02 March 2009 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
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 91AFF3A68B8 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 06:52:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 FJ92sXLGPN3T for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 06:52:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.bae.co.uk (smtp1.bae.co.uk [20.133.0.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464D43A6818 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 06:52:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpb.greenlnk.net (smtpb.greenlnk.net [10.15.160.219]) by smtp1.bae.co.uk (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id n22EqseW029888 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:52:54 GMT
Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET (glkas0002.greenlnk.net [10.15.184.52]) by smtpb.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id n22Eqs76026201 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:52:54 GMT
Received: from glkms1100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.108]) by glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:52:54 -0000
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.93]) by glkms1100.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:52:53 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:52:52 -0000
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D019FDEF1@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C48@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] new charter
Thread-Index: AcmZA4D7GvOj98TgRN+fRurNRpYVsAAA95NwAI+ZrRA=
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><49A7BB89.5040807@gmail.com><003901c998cb$42b71e90$c8255bb0$@nl><49A7E97A.2010503@gmail.com><006801c998fd$06c5bd60$14513820$@nl> <49A8272D.2060400@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C48@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>, "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2009 14:52:53.0919 (UTC) FILETIME=[90FB8AF0:01C99B46]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:52:31 -0000

Stan Ratliff
> And I'll have to disagree with the "25m subnets". I regularly deal
with
> line-of-sight radio links that are in excess of 25km. We can't limit
> ourselves to short-range technologies (e.g. Commercial 802.11,
> Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc). I don't believe a distance should be
explicitly
> stated in the charter, rather, some verbiage that talks about "radio
> neighbors in range" should be sufficient.

Agreed. There has to be a good reason to limit consideration of
what bearers to use, and the default without such a good reason
(which I am not aware of) is anything that works. Which means
that actually it doesn't even have to be a radio bearer. If in
an ad hoc network some links are wired, it may still be convenient
to treat them as ad hoc links. (And that also is not just keeping
options open for the sake of doing so.)

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************