Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)

HyungJin Lim a écrit :
> I'm sorry for correction about the following comment and duplicate comments.
> My first language is not English.
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *HyungJin Lim* <dream.hjlim@gmail.com <mailto:dream.hjlim@gmail.com>>
> Date: 2009/3/5
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network 
> Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
> To: iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>, 
> alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> Inline...
> 
> 2009/3/5 IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org 
> <mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org>>
> 
>     A modified charter has been submitted for the Ad-Hoc Network
>     Autoconfiguration working group in the Internet Area of the IETF.  The
>     IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The modified charter is
>     provided below for informational purposes only.  Please send your
>     comments
>     to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>) by
>     Wednesday, March 11, 2009.
> 
>     Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
>     -------------------------------------------------------------
>     Last Modified: 2009-02-18
> 
>     Current Status: Active Working Group
> 
>     Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf
>     <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf>
> 
>     Chair(s):
>     Ryuji Wakikawa [ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com
>     <mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com>]
>     Thomas Clausen [T.Clausen@computer.org <mailto:T.Clausen@computer.org>]
> 
>     Internet Area Director(s):
>     Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>]
>     Mark Townsley [townsley@cisco.com <mailto:townsley@cisco.com>]
> 
>     Internet Area Advisor:
>     Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>]
> 
>     Mailing Lists:
>     General Discussion: autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
>     To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>     Archive:
>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html
> 
>     Description of Working Group:
> 
>     In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
>     2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local addresses
>     that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may also need to
>     configure globally routable addresses, in order to communicate with
>     devices on the Internet. From the IP layer perspective, an ad hoc
>     network presents itself as a L3 multi-hop network formed over a
>     collection of links.
> 
>  
> In here, I have a question !
> What's meaning of globally routable addresses ?

I think it's a commonly agreed term, in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture 
  RFC.

> I think globally routable addresses should include topologically correct 
> address and topologically incorrect address.

Correct relative to what?

> The reason I address this is that the NEMO basic support should 
> configure topologically incorrect address in nested NEMO.

I agree: addresses configured within a nested NEMO moving network are 
probably topologically incorrect with respect to the CoA and subnet 
assigned to the top-level Mobile Router egress interface of a parent 
NEMO moving network.

> But topologically incorrect address is also globally routable addresses 
> if it a packet forwarding mechanism (e.g., tunneling) is supported, not 
> packet routing(e.g. OLSR, DYMO, etc.).

I agree.

>     The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the addressing model
>     for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure their
>     addresses. It is required that such models do not cause problems for ad
>     hoc-unaware parts of the system, such as standard applications running
>     on an ad hoc node or regular Internet nodes attached to the ad hoc
>     nodes. This group's effort may include the development of new protocol
>     mechanisms, should the existing IP autoconfiguration mechanisms be found
>     inadequate. However, the first task of the working group is to describe
>     one practical addressing model for ad hoc networks.
> 
>  
> What's meaning of practical addressing model ?
> *Although we already discussed this issue in MANEMO BoF,* *we should 
> *consider practical scenarios for practical addressing model in real 
> world I think.
> The only simplest scenario *can not* satisfy requirements and other 
> aspects in more complex scenario which include Internet connectivity, 
> nested pattern, group mobility, wireless coverage, and so on.
>  
> I would like suggest to define some requirements for practical scenarios.
> Then, the simplest scenario also can be considered as a base  topic of 
> them I think.

I tend to agree with the approach

I'm just afraid that defining new requirements may lengthen the process 
of coming up with a practical addressing model.  I think the word 
practical is there to just mean that in practice many of us may write an 
addressing model in a very straightforward manner, which would work in 
each one's particular case.

Maybe we could find the practical and easiest simplest most convenient 
way of a common denominator addressing models for some very simple 
dynamic networks.

Alex