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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Thu, 26 August 2010 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 9CBB73A6A6F for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 6nLQNySzmzX4 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875343A69F1 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so1619438ewy.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.15.65 with SMTP id j1mr1112089eba.79.1282846649386; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.150] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8sm4474425eeh.8.2010.08.26.11.17.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4C767360.7050805@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:17:26 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7E56B44F-80A1-4A19-9498-0AACAFC5B4D9@inf-net.nl>
References: <AANLkTi=MZORvNSW7wHdHYOzkOwNZojBars26GfSPgWc9@mail.gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C741EBB.8060909@earthlink.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609170@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C75308C.1090506@earthlink.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D036094AB@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C767360.7050805@earthlink.net>
To: Charles E. Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
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: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:17:01 -0000

Charlie,

Learning default gateways in a passive mode is well accepted behavior
of hosts. It is mentioned in RFC 1122:
|  This technique depends upon the host passively
|  receiving ("wiretapping") the Interior Gateway Protocol
|  (IGP) datagrams that the gateways are broadcasting to
| each other. 

But signaling from hosts to routers is another story. We have NDP or 
ARP for this. One could think of redistributing NDP / ARP learned routing
info into the routing protocol. I am not sure we should go there.

Teco


Op 26 aug 2010, om 16:00 heeft Charles E. Perkins het volgende geschreven:

> 
> Hello Christopher,
> 
> I didn't ask what functions YOUR routers performed.
> 
> I asked what functions a node would be REQUIRED to
> perform in order to communicate in an ad hoc network.
> 
> A host does NOT have to pick MPRs in order to
> forward packets to a default router.  A host does
> NOT have to run a routing protocol in order to
> identify one or more default routers.  A host
> does NOT have to run a routing protocol in order
> to select among network interfaces for delivering
> packets to one of its possibly several default
> routers.
> 
> Surely it must be possible to have a discussion
> about this without meandering afar from the point.
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
> On 8/25/2010 8:17 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
>> I didn't have time to pick up all your points (and I don't
>> really have time even for this, so it will be brief).
>> 
>> You asked what router functions the example I gave satisfied:
>> 
>> - It's running a routing protocol, and actively participating in
>>   it. For example running OLSR it picks MPRs and communicates
>>   them.
>> 
>> - When a host on that node sends a packet, it chooses which
>>   neighbour is to be the next hop (possibly even which interface
>>   to use to do that) in order to route correctly.
>> 
>> That'll do to be going on from.
>> 
>> As for what my mobile is running to pick different points of
>> attachment, it's running an entire UMTS protocol stack (and
>> a GSM one) to select between base stations. And it's a much
>> more asymmetric relationship than any in an ad hoc network.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf