RE: default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs)
"Joe Macker" <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil> Mon, 03 April 2006 14:12 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQPne-000762-HV; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:12:58 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQPnc-00075e-W3 for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:12:56 -0400
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.83.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQPnc-0004Tj-MO for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:12:56 -0400
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id k33ECmZw002775; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:12:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from SEXTANT [132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.11.41) with SMTP id M2006040310125412399 ; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:12:54 -0400
From: Joe Macker <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>
To: "'Templin, Fred L'" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs)
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:12:51 -0400
Message-ID: <01e801c65728$b1787e10$165cfa84@SEXTANT>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcZUXj109ThDOJ+TRcSPfZRMJStFbAAjjfGgAAZlm8AAiJDcoA==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818ADE@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6d95a152022472c7d6cdf886a0424dc6
Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org
Fred: I agree regarding reactive vs. proactive. Just trying to get it clear and avoid overgeneralization. -Joe >-----Original Message----- >From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] >Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 4:32 PM >To: Joe Macker; autoconf@ietf.org >Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com >Subject: default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf] >Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs) > >Joe, > >In retrospect, it was more of a general question for the MANET >routing protocols than anything specific to Multi-Subnet >MANETs so I'm going to change the subject line. I agree that >with the proactive routing protocols the MANET border routers >can inject a default route into the routing protocol and it >propagates through the MANET just fine. (In fact, I now recall >that we did this with TBRPF back in the 2001-2002 timeframe as >I'm sure you have done with any proactive routing protocols >you may be using in your studies.) > >However, from reading the globalv6 proposal, it seems that the >landscape may be different for the reactive protocols. In >'draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt', >sections 5.3 and 6 the authors assert that special handling is >needed in the reactive protocol case to establish a default >route and direct packets through a default gateway. > >In particular, since the reactive protocols do not maintain >complete topology information at each MANET router, globalv6 >says that nodes sending packets via a particular MANET border >router must insert a routing header that names the final >destination and insert the address of the MANET border router >in the IPv6 destination address. This seems like it would >require a kernel hack to make it work. > >So its clear that this discussion is aside from the question >of Multi-Subnet MANETs, but it might be a differentiator >between reactive and proactive protocols from the standpoint >of Internet attachment. > >Fred >fred.l.templin@boeing.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Macker [mailto:joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil] >Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 10:20 AM >To: Templin, Fred L; autoconf@ietf.org >Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com >Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs > >Fred/All: >I know this question was addressed at Dave, but for at least >proactive routing issues should addressed with some >relationship to architecture. >e.g., stub areas, totally stub areas, NSSA type, transit. So I >think you have to first say what is the deployment scenario. > >For stub or totally stub the border router(s) should >proactively inject a default route. This is normal operation >for things like MANET-OSPF and OLSR types of deployments. >Other cases are more complex. Are there reasons why this >should be different than normal intra-domain types of approaches? >I >see draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets as a valid >subcase of what we can do. Is there some motivation why there >is a difference here in default route injection approach? I >guess I am thinking in terms of typical OSPF default route >handling/deployment use cases. > >Did you have something in mind or just curious? I think it's a >good question, but I would like to see this discussion be more >generally addressed and am presently hoping we could follow >standard best practices where it makes sense. I'd also like >to hear if someone has a reason why we should do something different. > >-Joe > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] >>Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:59 PM >>To: autoconf@ietf.org >>Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com >>Subject: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs >> >>Dave, >> >>I notice that 'draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets' >>is silent on the subject of how MANET routers can configure and use a >>default route. Do you have any thoughts on this? >> >>Fred >>fred.l.templin@boeing.com >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Autoconf mailing list >>Autoconf@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >> > > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
- [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet … Templin, Fred L
- RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Sub… Joe Macker
- Re: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Sub… Charles E. Perkins
- default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf] Con… Templin, Fred L
- [Autoconf] Subnet allocation protocols for Multi-… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Autoconf] Subnet allocation protocols for Mu… Charles E. Perkins
- [Autoconf] Avoiding wasted address space in Multi… Templin, Fred L
- RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Sub… Joe Macker
- RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Sub… Dave Thaler
- [Autoconf] RE: Avoiding wasted address space in M… Dave Thaler
- Re: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Sub… Christophe Jelger
- RE: default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf]… Joe Macker
- Re: [Autoconf] RE: Avoiding wasted address space … Ian Chakeres
- Re: [Autoconf] Avoiding wasted address space in M… Jari Arkko