Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 23 July 2010 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4554B3A6816 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.123
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cEDeiDlzw-0H for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D36C3A69F0 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o6N8vbQg026053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:57:37 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o6N8vbbf021045; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:57:37 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o6N8va4T015876; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:57:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4C495980.6060500@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:57:36 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net><4C2CFADD.3040909@piuha.net> <4C378C29.2040302@oracle.com> <323812CA-4C8B-4469-AA6C-0D65191F2735@sensinode.com> <CA71B05E-5CE0-45ED-8292-398136640025@gmail.com> <AANLkTikS7QyebdP6jOXDIM-cm2vE87VgSWFAq6d6PL0v@mail.gmail.com><4C46EFC8.6020501@piuha.net> <4C48144D.4040105@gmail.com><E88A7B1C-7E79-4F0D-9E70-098D649953AB@thomasclausen.org> <4C4815B4.6020907@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FA4C@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C485E37.3080808@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FAC3@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C4899AD.4030808@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FBE2@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FBE2@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:57:22 -0000

Le 23/07/2010 10:42, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit :
> If you are using the addresses even in NHDP, or even in a
> single neighbour cut-done NHDP that has link bidirectionality
> checking then they are so visible.

Hmmm... I have just tried two WiFi networks nearby (ad-hoc more, ha!) 
with different ESSIDs and channels and the link-locally addressed 
messages from one to another are invisible on Wireshark (from one link 
to another).

Besides, in some cases even in Access Point mode the messages from STA 
to BS are invisible between STAs on same ESSID, but that's particular.

Any other experience enlightening.

Alex

And the point of this work
> is to create addresses that are so usable.


>
> Whether the visibility matters can be argued. That the visibility
> occurs is not the case.
>