Re: [Autoconf] new charter

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 27 February 2009 13:23 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 901503A67FB for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:23:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.18
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, 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 gBoytYxzxawa for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0053A67E1 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nephilia.intra.cea.fr (nephilia.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.33]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id n1RDOAnZ013349; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:24:10 +0100
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by nephilia.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1RDOAdM016166; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:24:10 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id n1RDOAfD006397; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:24:10 +0100
Message-ID: <49A7E97A.2010503@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:24:10 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <7E8A76F7-2CE0-463A-8EE8-8877C46B4715@gmail.com> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <49A7BB89.5040807@gmail.com> <003901c998cb$42b71e90$c8255bb0$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <003901c998cb$42b71e90$c8255bb0$@nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
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, 27 Feb 2009 13:23:51 -0000

Teco Boot a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Let's try to be accurate:
> 
> [skip]
> |Sorry... in the picture above the addresses are also /128.  It was an
> |abbreviation for me to show only 2001:db8:1::1/64 assigned to Host1.
> |The full notation should have been 2001:db8:1::/64 prefix and
> |2001:db8:1::1/128.  Would the following picture satisfy the need for
> |/128 addresses?:
> 
> When prefix::/64 is assigned to a host, it configures a /64 address and not
> an /128 address.

I'm not sure I understand.

The prefix::/64 is typically assigned to a link, not to a host.  If a 
host is connected to that link then it configures a /128 address and a 
/64 subnet prefix, both "128" and "64" numbers are visible in its tables.

I don't understand why the need for /128 prefixes, why isn't the above 
/64-prefix-and-/128address not sufficient?

> Routers may generate a /128 prefix-address, and advertize this in the
> routing domain.

A host-based route propagated and deleted throughout a domain?  I don't 
see the necessity of doing so.  Assuming the routers are mobile within 
25m ranges then they wouldn't need to change their addresses, thus no 
need to propagate host-based routes.

Do you agree we consider routers mobile only within 25m ranges?

Alex

> Some mechanisms should make sure the /128 routing prefix is unique, if
> required. It is not required if the prefix is meant as anycast address,
> routers may use "duplicate prefixes" if this is useful. I think anycast is
> out-of-scope for [Autoconf], but we should be careful when specifying "MUST"
> for prefix uniqueness. We should use "SHOULD" instead.
> 
> Teco.
> 
> 
> 
>