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

Teco Boot <> Thu, 08 July 2010 07:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C093A67D3 for <>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4jiwDpE5c2Vt for <>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24313A6359 for <>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyb7 with SMTP id 7so68169eyb.31 for <>; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m4mr6456919ebn.80.1278572980833; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id a48sm68658414eei.1.2010. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:09:38 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Jari Arkko <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:09:45 -0000

My remarks made before. 

On the document:
1) IMHO the remarks on link-local are not that important.
2) My biggest problem is the /128 mask, this makes L3 communication dependent
on the MANET protocol, even for nodes with perfect L2 connectivity. Using a 
/64 on the MANET interface, and using the /128 for the routing protocol, 
does not have this problem. This method is used quite often (at least in some
olsr and ospf implementations).
Issue can be tackled in other documents, e.g. a problem statement, or MANET 
addressing version 2.
In other words, try to publish the document soon.

On the charter:
I suggest to accept some documents as WG documents:
 - draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey
 - draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication
I support the two-step approach, where the second (getting prefix and optionally
other parameters) will be based on DHCPv6.
I think the first step could be based on SLAAC (ND-approach) and / or DHCPv6.
I say it is to early to decide.
I am against working on a solution based on a single central node.

Regards, Teco


Op 7 jul 2010, om 23:34 heeft Jari Arkko het volgende geschreven:

> Just a reminder that we have to decide what to do here. We will determine what to do based on WG feedback. Absent any significant opposition, the default action will be to adopt the current proposal (posted earlier to the list) and publish the RFC. I would like to decide one week from now, i.e., please send comments by Wednesday, July 14th.
> Jari
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list