IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 02 July 2010 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 7562C3A6812 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.484
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.115, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 b0kk4LVCV9E7 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47BFC3A67CF for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so403562wyg.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.42.5 with SMTP id q5mr3402120ebe.52.1278056184145; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.168] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm3072747eei.0.2010.07.02.00.36.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <DF7E20A3-2F4C-4F37-A3D5-9C17C5B22856@sensinode.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:36:20 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9B013BAF-D5BE-470E-9498-4EF4A1DD2C2F@inf-net.nl>
References: <BFD8FF22-FD36-436E-9985-7BFA2E234081@gmail.com> <201006290803.34192.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0333F14C@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C2A723E.3020806@piuha.net> <DF7E20A3-2F4C-4F37-A3D5-9C17C5B22856@sensinode.com>
To: Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] 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: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:36:22 -0000

Zach Shelby:
> There the approach is to enable autoconfiguration with either DHCP or using a multihop DAD technique. 

RFC 3315: client SHOULD perform DAD, so I would not say "or".
I prefer the draft charter text, where DAD is out of scope for now. 


Draft charter text:
>  No new duplicate address detection mechanisms are will be specified as a part of the first item; it is expected that address uniqueness is guaranteed by the central node alone.

Central node duplicate avoidance may be based on globally-unique identifiers on all nodes, such as DHCPv6 DUID.
Let's define our assumption here, to avoid looped discussions.
We assume all nodes have guaranteed globally unique identifiers on forehand, either link-layer addresses or vendor assigned identifiers.
Otherwise, using DHCPv6 is questionable.


Teco.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email