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

["Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Chris,

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

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?

Regards,
Charlie P.