IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

"Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> Tue, 09 February 2010 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
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 8DB4528C250 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:50:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 5JJmpcFrmG1z for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4182028C16F for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:50:13 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Drq5AzbbQZxa5aZCcULm7dCHzWvmoHyPHhIPLbhRGLygpe1QsVkWFQhO0pebUMsQ; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [12.204.153.98] (helo=[10.166.254.144]) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1NeuF5-0000rW-El; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:51:19 -0500
Message-ID: <4B71A08F.9060904@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:51:11 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
References: <be8c8d781001260409qd23d4era0eac47eaeb3dba2@mail.gmail.com> <8DCBF4A4-7879-4148-A8FE-9A73219536B9@gmail.com> <008c01caa0fe$0eee3530$2cca9f90$@nl> <4B631699.7040504@earthlink.net> <009001caa10d$8729a2a0$957ce7e0$@nl> <4B6347DA.1040004@earthlink.net> <00a601caa19e$7122c810$53685830$@nl> <C8A0698C-B04F-475B-B750-842C8786778F@thomasclausen.org> <005501caa5a5$9b0fc7d0$d12f5770$@nl> <6CD290EC-969F-4421-B5C9-0558A4A5A865@thomasclausen.org> <003501caa63a$7b15ca20$71415e60$@nl> <93EB52DC-5869-450B-B1BE-8870D010BEF5@thomasclausen.org> <007401caa681$61506090$23f121b0$@nl> <1265735848.4511.97.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <1265735848.4511.97.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52032205e802dcb077f639ddf4c1c2b0de350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 12.204.153.98
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:50:14 -0000

Hello Carlos,

Questions/comments inline:


On 2/9/2010 9:17 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:

>> Agreed that standard "not that clever" behavior of the IP stack is
>> putting prefixes, configured on interfaces, in the routing table?

What "not that clever" agent is putting them there?

>> Agreed that putting other prefixes is 'something clever'?

"other prefixes" == ???

>> Agreed that with the proposed addressing model, under conditions that
>> the 'something clever' is not functioning, L3 communication fails for
>> links between two nodes that have L2 communication?
>
> I agree with this.

But the document says:

=>    If L2 communication is enabled between a pair of interfaces, IP
=>    packet exchange is enabled regardless of the IP subnet configuration
=>    on each of these interfaces.

Thus, Teco's assertion is wrong.

It seems to me that each of the three parts quoted above
are either highly questionable, mysterious, or wrong.

What's to agree with?

Regards,
Charlie P.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email