Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)

"Teco Boot" <> Wed, 04 March 2009 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BFC3A68EF; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:19:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.639
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.407, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mwy9IJvkja2L; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (hpsmtp-eml19.KPNXCHANGE.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC5428C1C0; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Mar 2009 20:18:52 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Mar 2009 20:18:52 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <>
To: "'Alexandru Petrescu'" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 20:18:51 +0100
Message-ID: <000001c99cfe$0d927ca0$28b775e0$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acmc79FWlnGjsPWCS7Spy46jOjk7QgAC8Zyw
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2009 19:18:52.0184 (UTC) FILETIME=[0DAD0980:01C99CFE]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
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 Mar 2009 19:19:16 -0000


|-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|Van: [] Namens
|Alexandru Petrescu
|Verzonden: woensdag 4 maart 2009 18:36
|Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network
|Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
|I would like to suggest: add explicitely that the practical addressing
|model should work at least with manual and static routes.  And that the
|practical addressing model should not be preconditioned by the use of
|OLSR nor DYMO in the ad-hoc network.

I think the addressing model has little to do with the method how to assign
and configure the addresses. This is a next step. I wonder if any model
exclude what you are asking for. Worried for some reason???

I would not suggest working with static routes in a mobile ad hoc network.

I agree on the last one, the model should apply to other MANET Routing
Protocols as well. OSPF-MANET is an important one, not forgetting others,
including multicast.
|Also suggest: specifically mention which link-layers are being
|considered for ad-hoc networks.  I personally consider 802.11, 802.15.4,
|wired Ethernet, USB and eventually 802.16.  If anybody else considers
|other link-layers please mention them.

I consider other link layers, but I will not mention them. I do not know all
details or even a complete list. And if I would, it doesn't help. I think it
is sufficient and more useful to describe the MANET link characteristics.


|IESG Secretary a écrit :
|> A modified charter has been submitted for the Ad-Hoc Network
|> Autoconfiguration working group in the Internet Area of the IETF.  The
|> IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The modified charter is
|> provided below for informational purposes only.  Please send your
|> to the IESG mailing list ( by Wednesday, March 11, 2009.
|> Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
|> -------------------------------------------------------------
|> Last Modified: 2009-02-18
|> Current Status: Active Working Group
|> Additional information is available at
|> Chair(s):
|> Ryuji Wakikawa []
|> Thomas Clausen []
|> Internet Area Director(s):
|> Jari Arkko []
|> Mark Townsley []
|> Internet Area Advisor:
|> Jari Arkko []
|> Mailing Lists:
|> General Discussion:
|> To Subscribe:
|> Archive:
|> Description of Working Group:
|> In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
|> 2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local
|> that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may also need to
|> configure globally routable addresses, in order to communicate with
|> devices on the Internet. From the IP layer perspective, an ad hoc
|> network presents itself as a L3 multi-hop network formed over a
|> collection of links.
|> The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the addressing
|> for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure their
|> addresses. It is required that such models do not cause problems for
|> hoc-unaware parts of the system, such as standard applications running
|> on an ad hoc node or regular Internet nodes attached to the ad hoc
|> nodes. This group's effort may include the development of new protocol
|> mechanisms, should the existing IP autoconfiguration mechanisms be
|> inadequate. However, the first task of the working group is to
|> one practical addressing model for ad hoc networks.
|> Once this sole work item is completed, the group can be rechartered to
|> work on additional issues.
|> Goals and Milestones:
|> Apr 2009 Submit initial draft on address configuration in ad hoc
|> Sep 2009 Submit address configuration draft to IESG as Informational
|> close WG
|> _______________________________________________
|> Autoconf mailing list
|Autoconf mailing list