Re: [Autoconf] tentative draft-ietf-autoconf-problem-statement-03.txt and the manetarch document

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 23 November 2007 17:00 UTC

Return-path: <autoconf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivbtj-0006iI-ON; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:00:59 -0500
Received: from autoconf by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivbth-0006bI-Tn for autoconf-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:00:57 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivbtg-0006a4-V3 for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:00:57 -0500
Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com ([216.82.250.131]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivbtg-0007VI-F6 for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:00:56 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1195837255!564725!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=.,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.103]
Received: (qmail 14810 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2007 17:00:55 -0000
Received: from motgate3.mot.com (HELO motgate3.mot.com) (144.189.100.103) by server-11.tower-128.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 23 Nov 2007 17:00:55 -0000
Received: from az33exr03.mot.com (az33exr03.mot.com [10.64.251.233]) by motgate3.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lANH0tRg019393; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:00:55 -0700 (MST)
Received: from az10vts03 (az10vts03.mot.com [10.64.251.244]) by az33exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lANH0sLl016458; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:00:54 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by az33exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lANH0q49016129; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:00:53 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4747072E.2080304@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:00:30 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shubhranshu <shubranshu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] tentative draft-ietf-autoconf-problem-statement-03.txt and the manetarch document
References: <e9c684940711230841i13efeb53s1948ef2321de44a1@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e9c684940711230841i13efeb53s1948ef2321de44a1@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071122-0, 22/11/2007), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org

Shubhranshu wrote:
>> Shubhranshu, I can try to re-formulate that text to express better that
>> that is a problem not a solution.  If one tries to run DHCPv6 Server and
>> a DHCPv6 Relay, and then a Router behind the Relay requests for a prefix
>> (with DHCPv6 PRefix Delegation) then one realizes that (1) the allocated
>> prefix must be hierarchically[*] fit within the prefix administratively
>> assigned on the Relay's interface towards Router and (2) once the prefix
>> is allocated it will unfortunately _not_ be inserted in DHCP Server's
>> routing table (because it is already covered by the routing entry
>> pointing to Relay's prefix).
>>
>> This is a problem from implementation.
>>
>> It could help if we had a requirement (within a bulleted list of Req
>> items) on architecture of unicast prefixes assigned on MANET subnets to
>> be able to be both hierarchical and non-hierarchical - i.e. there should
>> be no strict hierarchical relationship between IPv6 prefixes assigned to
>> the MANET subnets (even when the pictured topology seems hierarchical
>> tree-like).
> 
> Above you said "the allocated prefix must be hierarchically[*] fit.."

[*]: that's what some DHCPv6 implementation requires.  It may be a DHCP 
problem that could be corrected.

> but your requirement in the immediately above paragraph is "there
> should be no strict hierarchical relationship between IPv6 prefixes
> assigned". I guess I am missing something since these two sounds
> contradicting to me.

I agree with you and others that in a MANET Network the IPv6 Addressing 
Architecture should not rely on prefixes being aggregated 
hierarchically.  The AUTOCONF protocol and MANET protocol should work 
regardless of the IPv6 addressing architecture being hierarchical or not 
  hierarchical.  I've probably been not clear enough.  This is a good 
requirement I agree on.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf