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

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Fri, 23 July 2010 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D63F3A6816 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.311, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33JC+LisYboJ for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1790A3A69E4 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,246,1278284400"; d="scan'208";a="78040104"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2010 09:59:30 +0100
Received: from glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o6N8xU6E011354; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:59:30 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([]) by glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:59:30 +0100
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:59:29 +0100
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FC07@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <>
thread-topic: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
thread-index: AcsqRRrgDW0B7x0KTNeV5TqgHUuV1QAACvIg
References: <><> <> <> <> <><> <><> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FA4C@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FAC3@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344FBE2@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: "Alexandru Petrescu" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2010 08:59:30.0348 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C845EC0:01CB2A45]
Cc:, Thomas Heide Clausen <>
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: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:59:14 -0000

That's because you weren't running a MANET. 

I'm going to stop spending time on this discussion now.

Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [] 
Sent: 23 July 2010 09:58
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Thomas Heide Clausen;
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

                    *** WARNING ***

  This message has originated outside your organisation,
  either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

Le 23/07/2010 10:42, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit :
> If you are using the addresses even in NHDP, or even in a
> single neighbour cut-done NHDP that has link bidirectionality
> checking then they are so visible.

Hmmm... I have just tried two WiFi networks nearby (ad-hoc more, ha!) 
with different ESSIDs and channels and the link-locally addressed 
messages from one to another are invisible on Wireshark (from one link 
to another).

Besides, in some cases even in Access Point mode the messages from STA 
to BS are invisible between STAs on same ESSID, but that's particular.

Any other experience enlightening.


And the point of this work
> is to create addresses that are so usable.

> Whether the visibility matters can be argued. That the visibility
> occurs is not the case.

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.