Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 23 July 2010 10:53 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 1DFC73A6839 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 5THDSnUP0iQR for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAE03A67FC for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so27549ewy.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.4.203 with SMTP id 11mr3280058ebs.5.1279882452081; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.128.0.173] ([77.61.241.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x54sm174561eeh.11.2010.07.23.03.54.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:54:04 -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: <4C495164.4080604@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:54:04 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <08631826-F740-4FDD-8642-41E1D507D12B@inf-net.nl>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FAC3@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C4899AD.4030808@gmail.com> <201007230723.58638.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <4C494806.5060609@gmail.com> <AANLkTi=+VixB225byHoA9OHtckZmdP6myLRT+DaGmnwn@mail.gmail.com> <4C495164.4080604@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
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, 23 Jul 2010 10:53:57 -0000

Op 23 jul 2010, om 10:23 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende geschreven:

>> And even worse, consider a setting where routers actually move in an
>> unknown patterns (i.e. are "mobile"); how would you update ESSIDs
>> and channels?
> 
> Does such a setting really exist (pure random movements like  in
> Brownian)?  Example?
> 
> For some wireless deployments studies have been performed to identify
> patterns: vehicular, urban citizen, more.  For each there are possible
> plans on which WiFi would work good.
> 
> Even the most arbitrary movements like in a battlefield have a very high
> degree of planning - the command and control is very centralized.

Sorry, you disqualified yourself here.

Teco.