Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications

"Charles E. Perkins" <> Fri, 27 August 2010 03:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF033A6966 for <>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yh2Kg8EQWWXm for <>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6493A684D for <>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=gfYDUDq5E35rIZ8sYhq5Z6hauQDfZ7gNFRsE8/6O5ITpAD8LVuO9oMLbLwvy30D+; 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 1Oopak-0005P4-JV; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:26:58 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:26:56 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <>
References: <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609170@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D036094AB@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609914@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609914@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52107029ea7d6d7f1f97ef16824093a6fd350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
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: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 03:26:28 -0000

Hello Chris,

I'm responding again, because I'd like to have a fruitful

On 8/26/2010 7:21 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

> This started from the specific example, so that is clearly quite
> to the point. You may now be discussing other cases, but that's
> another matter.

Do you mean the specific example of your nodes running
OLSR and identifying MPRs?  I'm happy to agree that your
nodes are routers.

If I discussed other cases, it was only to reach the
goal of identifying the boundary between hostness and
routerness.  Is that sufficiently to the point?

> If by a node we mean a physically separate entity (in a
> wireless network) and if we allow that node to be independently
> mobile and to connect to other nodes (otherwise it's not really
> an ad hoc node) and it is to be unicast reachable from elsewhere
> in the network via one of those other nodes, then it has to be
> running something.

Obviously...  it's running some computer programs.

If a node runs ARP, is it a router?

>             It's for you to indicate what that something
> is and why that isn't a routing protocol, despite having some
> (agreed, not all) routing functions, and how it will work in a
> MANET with wireless links (with the usual non-transitive
> properties).

I already mentioned several examples.  Should I do it
again?  What about a node running ND?  What about a node
snooping the airwaves?  What about a node running Mobile IP?
I've just scratched the surface of examples.  In fact
I'll even play dirty and keep you in suspense to wait for
a new Internet Draft I am co-authoring on this subject.

> Otherwise you are asking me to prove a negative, and we know
> how easy that is.

I'm asking you to accept that a node can beneficially
reside in an ad hoc network without being a router.
What is negative about that?

Unless I completely misunderstand your point of view,
this is not in any way asking you to prove a negative.
Of course it is possible to prove a negative proposition.
But, I have not asked you to do so.  Or, what negative
proposition do you believe I have postulated for your
consideration?  If I put "not" in any point of discussion,
have I exceeded my boundaries of feasible communication?

Charlie P.