Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)

Inline

Teco Boot wrote:
> Inline.
>
> |-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> |Van: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] Namens
> |Alexandru Petrescu
> |Verzonden: woensdag 4 maart 2009 18:36
> |CC: autoconf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; T.Clausen@computer.org
> |Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network
> |Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
> |
> |I would like to suggest: add explicitely that the practical addressing
> |model should work at least with manual and static routes.  And that the
> |practical addressing model should not be preconditioned by the use of
> |OLSR nor DYMO in the ad-hoc network.
>
> I think the addressing model has little to do with the method how to assign
> and configure the addresses. This is a next step. I wonder if any model
> exclude what you are asking for. Worried for some reason???
>   
I don't see why the charter should explicitly mention that the
addressing model should work with manual and static routes. As Teco
said, this would be part of the solution space, i.e. it could be part of
a draft that describes an autoconf mechanism.

> I would not suggest working with static routes in a mobile ad hoc network.
>   
Well, as said, I don't think that's part of the discussion we lead here
concerning the charter.
> I agree on the last one, the model should apply to other MANET Routing
> Protocols as well. OSPF-MANET is an important one, not forgetting others,
> including multicast.
>   
Yes, but I don't think it should be mentioned in the charter. The
charter does not say anything that the addressing model should have any
preconditions for a particular MANET routing protocol. Otherwise, it
would need to list a large number of routing protocols (OLSR, OLSRv2,
OSPF, AODV,....)
>  
> |Also suggest: specifically mention which link-layers are being
> |considered for ad-hoc networks.  I personally consider 802.11, 802.15.4,
> |wired Ethernet, USB and eventually 802.16.  If anybody else considers
> |other link-layers please mention them.
>
> I consider other link layers, but I will not mention them. I do not know all
> details or even a complete list. And if I would, it doesn't help. I think it
> is sufficient and more useful to describe the MANET link characteristics.
>   

I agree with Teco. MANETs can run on a number of different L2
technologies with certain characteristics. These characteristics should
be mentioned in the document to be written, but not in the charter. In
my opinion, no specific L2 should be mentioned.

Ulrich
> Teco.
>
>
> |
> |Alex
> |
> |IESG Secretary a écrit :
> |> A modified charter has been submitted for the Ad-Hoc Network
> |> Autoconfiguration working group in the Internet Area of the IETF.  The
> |> IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The modified charter is
> |> provided below for informational purposes only.  Please send your
> |comments
> |> to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Wednesday, March 11, 2009.
> |>
> |> Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
> |> -------------------------------------------------------------
> |> Last Modified: 2009-02-18
> |>
> |> Current Status: Active Working Group
> |>
> |> Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf
> |>
> |> Chair(s):
> |> Ryuji Wakikawa [ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com]
> |> Thomas Clausen [T.Clausen@computer.org]
> |>
> |> Internet Area Director(s):
> |> Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net]
> |> Mark Townsley [townsley@cisco.com]
> |>
> |> Internet Area Advisor:
> |> Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net]
> |>
> |> Mailing Lists:
> |> General Discussion: autoconf@ietf.org
> |> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> |> Archive:
> |> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html
> |>
> |> 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
> |>
> |> _______________________________________________
> |> Autoconf mailing list
> |> Autoconf@ietf.org
> |> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> |>
> |
> |_______________________________________________
> |Autoconf mailing list
> |Autoconf@ietf.org
> |https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>   