Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 27 February 2009 18:24 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 074AF28C1BF for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:24:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.19
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, 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 Bp8fSV9WYvWN for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:24:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBF628C15A for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:24:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nephilia.intra.cea.fr (nephilia.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.33]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id n1RIMtS6022337; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:22:55 +0100
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by nephilia.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1RIOdEc006917; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:24:39 +0100 (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 n1RIOd2b000965; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:24:39 +0100
Message-ID: <49A82FE7.7090703@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:24:39 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <7E8A76F7-2CE0-463A-8EE8-8877C46B4715@gmail.com> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <49A7BB89.5040807@gmail.com> <003901c998cb$42b71e90$c8255bb0$@nl> <49A7E97A.2010503@gmail.com> <006801c998fd$06c5bd60$14513820$@nl> <49A82694.8090801@gmail.com> <007a01c99905$fd1619a0$f7424ce0$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <007a01c99905$fd1619a0$f7424ce0$@nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing
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, 27 Feb 2009 18:24:20 -0000

Teco Boot a écrit :
> Inline.
> 
> |-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> |Van: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
> |Verzonden: vrijdag 27 februari 2009 18:45
> |Aan: Teco Boot
> |CC: autoconf@ietf.org
> |Onderwerp: Re: practical addressing (was: [Autoconf] new charter)
> |
> |[Thanks for the details Linux/Vista/IOS routing tables!  I didn't know
> |  all that, only for linux]
> |
> |Teco Boot a écrit :
> |>>> Routers may generate a /128 prefix-address, and advertize this in
> |>>>  the routing domain.
> |>
> |>> A host-based route propagated and deleted throughout a domain? I
> |>> don't see the necessity of doing so. Assuming the routers are
> |>> mobile within 25m ranges then they wouldn't need to change their
> |>> addresses, thus no need to propagate host-based routes.
> |>
> |> If the /128 is not propagated, there will be no multi-hop network.
> |
> |Well I disagree.  In the multi-hop network below only /64 prefixes are
> |present in Routers' routing tables, no /128 (host-based) routes:
> |
> |
> |   -----  wifi "adhoc1"  ------  wifi "adhoc2"  ------- "adhoc3"-----
> |  |Host1|---------------|Router|---------------|Router2|-------|Host2|
> |   ----- LL1    P1   LL2 ------ LL3   P2   LL4  -------LL5 P3  LL6---
> |         G1                                                    G4
> |
> |           P1, P2, P3: /64 prefixes, such as:
> |                       2001:db8:1::/64
> |                       2001:db8:2::/64 and
> |                       2001:db8:3::/64
> |
> |Would this kind of use of /64 prefixes alleviate the need to
> |propagate/delete /128 prefixes throughout the network?
> 
> Your routers need two wifi interfaces.

Yes.

> Often, there is only one wifi interface.

If the charter text said we only look at routers with one physical
interface then I'd go away.

And if it said we only look at routers with at least two physical
interfaces then my figures would be right.

> The MANET Routing protocol provides connectivity between nodes that
> are out of range from each other, via relay nodes that are in range.

Well that can be achieved with simple plain routing, not necessarily a
dynamic routing protocol.

> Using many distinct SSIDs can introduce problems, e.g. Host-1 and
> Host-2 are near each other, but on a different SSID:

Using a single SSID can introduce other problems, such as the now
documented hidden terminal problem.

We should make choices.

Alex