Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd:Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)

"Charles E. Perkins" <> Thu, 05 August 2010 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D09E3A6999 for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.401, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cl4Bqk5UIGpB for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443AB3A687F for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=FEX+uZHhJkimGn2KQnH8kd+2mVZ3/hbsY6BLIBMnvFoxq4DVLjOQSr6V0UV2BvuS; 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 [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1Oh8kH-0008Ux-AX; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:17:01 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:16:52 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emmanuel Baccelli <>
References: <><> <><> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f526857921bea0441b29a9cdeb34832a54b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd:Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:16:32 -0000

Hello Emmanuel,

> Maybe it would be easier to focus on the counterpart instead, and
> consider the question "what is the definition of a host?". It seems to
> me that the devices we are aiming to configure are typically capable of
> things that hosts can't do (including, for instance, forwarding traffic
> on behalf of other devices, if necessary).

I don't think so.  If a device is a host and not
a router, it shouldn't be forwarding packets.

I'm sure that there are going to be non-routing
hosts in wireless ad hoc networks.  From previous
design work, I know that it is absolutely straightforward
to allow a host to request an address and get one (if
available).  You might check [from year 2001]:
We seemed to know more on average in 2001, than has
been displayed here lately in the autoconf WG.  A node
does NOT have to forward packets to request an address!

>   "hosts are considered to be connected to a MANET only through
> a router, and thus, the MANET can be considered as comprising of only
> routers".

Do you _really_ want to exclude hosts from your network?
Where will the applications reside?  Hmmm... a network without
hosts...  Seems like a niche market.  But, ad hoc networks
are still a niche market, so this would be a niche niche
market.  <hmmm, sounds like Monty Python's knights...>

> This architectural consideration thus separated the issue of
> "configuring routers" from the issue of "configuring hosts" in this
> context, and the rough consensus was that we would first focus on
> configuring routers. Which lead us to where we are now.

When was this rough consensus?  Do you mean in Maastricht?
Or, before?  If the latter, I surely missed it.

Charlie P.