Re: [Autoconf] new charter

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 27 February 2009 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 920C228C34F for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:47:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 qp3L2AuB0v08 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:47:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D30528C34D for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nephilia.intra.cea.fr (nephilia.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.33]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id n1RHlQ70003906; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:47:26 +0100
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by nephilia.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1RHlQot003755; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:47:26 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id n1RHlP3q012050; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:47:25 +0100
Message-ID: <49A8272D.2060400@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:47:25 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
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> <49A7BB89.5040807@gmail.com> <003901c998cb$42b71e90$c8255bb0$@nl> <49A7E97A.2010503@gmail.com> <006801c998fd$06c5bd60$14513820$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <006801c998fd$06c5bd60$14513820$@nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:47:05 -0000

Teco Boot wrote:
> In a MANET, I expect nodes to run a MANET Routing protocol and
> forward packets.

Well I agree with the last part: MANET nodes do forward packets.  But I 
don't agree with the first part: in a MANET I could configure static 
routes, not necessarily running a MANET routing protocol.

> In ad hoc networks, one (you ?) would say nodes could be hosts or
> Mobile Routers acting as hosts.

Yes.  If the future charter rules these kinds of MANET networks which 
are non-MANET-routing-protocol then I'll go away :-)

> |Do you agree we consider routers mobile only within 25m ranges?
> 
> Absolutely not. For me, 25km is a reasonable distance!

But is that MANET?  Or is it just a 25km subnet?

> Just 10^3 times the distance and 10^6 times the power per bit (single
> hop) or 10^3 times the power per bit if multi-hop is enabled (and
> 1000 intermediate nodes....). Just physical laws here.

Well I agree the physical laws are so.  But I disagree to have 25km 
MANETs in the Charter.  I agree with "25m IPv6 subnets", if they were 
explicitely stated so in the charter.

Alex


Proposed charter pasted below:
J. Arkko wrote earlier:
> Description of Working Group:
> 
> In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
> 2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local
> addresses that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may
> also need to configure globally routable addresses, in order to
> communicate with devices on the Internet. From the IP layer
> perspective, an ad hoc network presents itself as a L3 multi-hop
> network formed over a collection of links.
> 
> The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the addressing
> model for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure
> their addresses. It is required that such models do not cause
> problems for ad hoc-unaware parts of the system, such as standard
> applications running on an ad hoc node or regular Internet nodes
> attached to the ad hoc nodes. This group's effort may include the
> development of new protocol mechanisms, should the existing IP
> autoconfiguration mechanisms be found inadequate. However, the first
> task of the working group is to describe one practical addressing
> model for ad hoc networks.
> 
> Once this sole work item is completed, the group can be rechartered
> to work on additional issues.
> 
> Goals and Milestones:
> 
> Apr 2009 Submit initial draft on address configuration in ad hoc
> networks Sep 2009 Submit address configuration draft to IESG as
> Informational or close WG.
>