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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 21 July 2010 18:35 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 3E2B43A68A3 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.715, 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 MvgKvRHk2GXP for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E3E3A6AF3 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 473839401E4 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:35:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4C473DDB.6000505@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:35:07 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: autoconf@ietf.org
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <4C2CFADD.3040909@piuha.net> <4C378C29.2040302@oracle.com> <AANLkTil6lRJPunxB1oAbnTL0d6gpIXHUTuyTBPi5NTbX@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTil6lRJPunxB1oAbnTL0d6gpIXHUTuyTBPi5NTbX@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100721-0, 21/07/2010), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
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: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:35:42 -0000

Le 21/07/2010 11:58, Emmanuel Baccelli a écrit :
> Hi Erik,
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@oracle.com
> <mailto:erik.nordmark@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     ...
>
>     The result is that the document can easily be construed as
>     discouraging approaches that make a lot of sense, which seems
>     counterproductive.
>     An example of such an approach is a routing protocol which uses IEEE
>     MAC addresses as router ids, assigns IPv6 link-local addresses to
>     the router's interfaces and uses that in the routing protocol
>     exchanges, and configures global addresses for use by applications.
>
>
> Using MAC addresses for unique identifier is considered dangerous by
> many people, as MAC addresses are not always unique. There were several
> cases where an order of several thousands of devices where shipped with
> the exact same MAC address, by mistake. Moreover, MAC addresses can be
> altered almost at will. This is why relying on MAC addresses for unique
> identifiers is not sufficient in my mind. It's merely another way to
> say: "let other people worry about our problems". This rarely works
> reliably.
>
> As to using link local addresses, there are many cases where it is not
> appropriate,

Sure, and there are many cases where they are appropriate.  Why 
mentioning only the negative part?

> as discussed over and over in this working group and
> elsewhere. If you have any comments on
> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-04.txt
> please let us know. The fundamental properties of multi-hop wireless
> communications described in that document make it difficult to use
> link-local addresses in many cases.

Hmmm... sure, in that particular draft deployment.

In the multi-hop wireless communications system I build the link-local 
addresses are very useful and actually can't work without them.

Alex

>
> And again, the goal of RFC5889 is not to describe all possible
> addressing models for each specific scenario, but rather to describe one
> specific model with which we have experience in multi-hop wireless
> contexts, and which has proven to work OK. In that respect, I
> think RFC5889 does the job.
>
> Regards,
> Emmanuel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf