Re: [Autoconf] new charter
"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 27 February 2009 17:01 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 6C15528C2B0 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:01:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.664, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6]
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 XyCMEosz2Ku3 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtpo-eml06.kpnxchange.com (cpsmtpo-eml06.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54EBE28C268 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml101.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.84.101]) by cpsmtpo-eml06.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:01:27 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml101.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:01:27 +0100
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: 'Alexandru Petrescu' <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <49A7E97A.2010503@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:01:26 +0100
Message-ID: <006801c998fd$06c5bd60$14513820$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmY3q9rlv3+S0D1TIK9du4CoUA55wAD/Kow
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 17:01:27.0128 (UTC) FILETIME=[072C9580:01C998FD]
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 17:01:17 -0000
Inline. |-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- |Van: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com] |Verzonden: vrijdag 27 februari 2009 14:24 |Aan: Teco Boot |CC: 'Alexandru Petrescu'; autoconf@ietf.org |Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] new charter | |Teco Boot a écrit : |> Hi Alex, |> |> Let's try to be accurate: |> |> [skip] |> |Sorry... in the picture above the addresses are also /128. It was an |> |abbreviation for me to show only 2001:db8:1::1/64 assigned to Host1. |> |The full notation should have been 2001:db8:1::/64 prefix and |> |2001:db8:1::1/128. Would the following picture satisfy the need for |> |/128 addresses?: |> |> When prefix::/64 is assigned to a host, it configures a /64 address |and not |> an /128 address. | |I'm not sure I understand. | |The prefix::/64 is typically assigned to a link, not to a host. If a |host is connected to that link then it configures a /128 address and a |/64 subnet prefix, both "128" and "64" numbers are visible in its |tables. | |I don't understand why the need for /128 prefixes, why isn't the above |/64-prefix-and-/128address not sufficient? This is interesting. I meant generating an address in the /64 prefix. I don't know what is specified in RFCs. I checked behavior on Vista, Linux and IOS: o Linux (debian lenny) adds a /128 prefix in the routing table, to the loopback interface, similar to what I propose in my addressing model mail. It also adds a /64 address-prefix to the Ethernet interface this is a bit weird, as two interfaces has the same address configured. o Vista assigns addresses to the Ethernet interface (in my case), and adds /128 prefixes in the routing table. Vista also adds the /64 in the routing table. o IOS behavior is as Vista, addresses to interfaces and /128 in routing table. Details on Linux behavior: the /64 are on Ethernet (eth0) and the /128 are on loopback (lo). # ifconfig lo | egrep 'inet6|encap' lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host # netstat -6rn | grep 128 ::1/128 :: Un 0 1 17 lo 2001:db8:1:0:20c:29ff:fee3:bdf5/128 :: Un 0 1 11 lo fe80::20c:29ff:fee3:bdf5/128 :: Un 0 1 3 lo fe80::20c:29ff:fee3:bdff/128 :: Un 0 1 0 lo # ifconfig eth0 | egrep 'inet6|encap' eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0c:29:e3:bd:f5 inet6 addr: 2001:db8:1:0:20c:29ff:fee3:bdf5/64 Scope:Global inet6 addr: fe80::20c:29ff:fee3:bdf5/64 Scope:Link # netstat -6rn | grep 64 2001:db8:1::/64 :: UAe 256 0 15 eth0 fe80::/64 :: U 256 0 0 eth0 fe80::/64 :: U 256 0 0 eth1 Conclusion: I was wrong with my statement. Linux behaves as I mentioned, other IPv6 stacks have different characteristics. |> Routers may generate a /128 prefix-address, and advertize this in the |> routing domain. | |A host-based route propagated and deleted throughout a domain? I don't |see the necessity of doing so. Assuming the routers are mobile within |25m ranges then they wouldn't need to change their addresses, thus no |need to propagate host-based routes. If the /128 is not propagated, there will be no multi-hop network. In a MANET, I expect nodes to run a MANET Routing protocol and forward packets. In ad hoc networks, one (you ?) would say nodes could be hosts or Mobile Routers acting as hosts. |Do you agree we consider routers mobile only within 25m ranges? Absolutely not. For me, 25km is a reasonable distance! 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. Teco. |Alex | |> Some mechanisms should make sure the /128 routing prefix is unique, if |> required. It is not required if the prefix is meant as anycast |address, |> routers may use "duplicate prefixes" if this is useful. I think |anycast is |> out-of-scope for [Autoconf], but we should be careful when specifying |"MUST" |> for prefix uniqueness. We should use "SHOULD" instead. |> |> Teco. |> |> |> |>
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Paul Lambert
- [Autoconf] new charter Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing (was: new cha… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing (was: new cha… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- [Autoconf] radio neighbors in range Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] radio neighbors in range Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] radio neighbors in range Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] radio neighbors in range Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Joe Macker
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] radio neighbors in range Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Joe Macker
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Joe Macker
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- [Autoconf] new charter Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot