Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)

"Charles E. Perkins" <> Wed, 04 August 2010 05:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3D83A682D for <>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:40:37 -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 R+TIYQI6Tifg for <>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244DE3A6817 for <>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=reUDJ7OVUbegPWIALvOMZKQkbrLOYnX/LOIDlUBFsnbE5HRoYvKX0IEH976hheVw; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1OgWiu-0005zv-Om for; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:41:05 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:41:01 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f524ccb835a6b9d67e133d0c1f868c49a4c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
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: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 05:40:37 -0000

Hello Henning,

On 8/3/2010 10:27 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:
> On Tue August 3 2010 19:56:29 Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>> The point was raised during the meeting that
>> any router could pretend to be a host by simply
>> setting willingness == 0.
> This would still be a node sending out HELLO (and maybe even TC messages if it
> has an attached network), so I would still consider it a router, just with a
> special configuration.

This is beside the point.  Hosts need addresses,
and if the only way they can get them is to be
routers, then something is wrong.

>> It was not explained why an energy-constrained
>> device should have to implement thousands of lines
>> of code just so it could have the privilege of
>> being called a router when it should never ever
>> be configured to forward packets.
> I think the problem is that the scope of the address model has no clear
> border.

The scope is difficult to define -- that's the
problem.  The ad hoc network could be defined as the
union of the ranges of the nodes in it, and then
the border to be the border of that set (neglecting
certain details).  This still does not materially
explain why a host should implement all that code.

> It should be done on the routers (but MANETs can and have been run
> with different address models), and it could be used for hosts closely
> attached to a MANET, but it's not necessary to do so.

What is "it"?

> But in my opinion it is still better it's still better to restrict the title
> as suggested in the WG meeting consensus that to make it too generic.

I can't imagine any non-political reason whatsoever for this.

Charlie P.