Re: [Autoconf] Another addressing model for AUTOCONF

Alex,

Quick comments:
Your example 2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24 share a common prefix.
Better use 2001:1::/32 and 2001:2::/32 or longer, e.g. /64.

On your presso: 
I would not use same ssid on APs in all vehicles. (slide 2, essid: "V3").
And I dislike the address spoofing mode, suggested in slide 4.
So it so +1 on others remarks.

Teco.

Op 22 jul 2010, om 23:01 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende geschreven:

> Addressing model we use, pdf 300Kb:
> 
>                 http://dl.free.fr/m95j1Km7a
> (the username is left empty and password is 'password', without
> quotes.  File stays there for 30 days.)
> 
> Teco asked whether my draft contains an addressing model... true - it doesn't show so obviously
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-00).
> 
> I said that there is an addressing model in this figure of the draft:
>>                           egress|              |egress
>>             ----     ----    ----              ----     ----    ----
>>            | LFN|   |LFN |  | MR |            | MR |   |LFN |  |LFN |
>>             ----     ----    ----              ----     ----    ----
>>               |        | ingress|              |ingress   |      |
>>              ---------------------             ---------------------
>>                   2001:1::/24                       2001:2::/24
> 
> ThomasC and Chris also expressed doubts with respect to LFN--MR--MR--LFN
> topology and link-local addresses; let me explain further.
> 
> We are using this addressing model on several moving networks. See the pdf at the beginning of this email. They show MR-to-MR with a single addressing scheme, then with a double addressing scheme; (double is necessary for our plan.)
> 
> And then a slide shows MR-to-MR-to-MR addressing model.
> 
> There are some scalability remarks and a route propagation model (pencil
> and paper).
> 
> The mechanism has been prototyped and demoed since about one year now,
> on three Mobile Routers and a bunch of LFNs, which shows it may work. We
> have great plans for demoing on vehicles.
> 
> This is an addressing model we consider strongly. It needs later to
> auto-configure some prefixes, because currently MNPs are pre-configured
> in each moving network (this is the case in some deployments).
> 
> This addressing model is important to us, and uses link-local addresses.
> 
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf