Re: [Autoconf] new charter

Rex Buddenberg <budden@nps.navy.mil> Fri, 27 February 2009 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <budden@nps.edu>
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 B556E3A68BD for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:43:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 wtfJpFmnC9aH for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:43:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from virginia.nps.edu (virginia.nps.edu [205.155.65.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E253A6966 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([172.20.57.107]) by virginia.nps.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:43:29 -0800
Message-ID: <49A84285.5030103@nps.navy.mil>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:44:05 -0800
From: Rex Buddenberg <budden@nps.navy.mil>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
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><49A7E97A.2010503@gmail.com> <006801c998fd$06c5bd60$14513820$@nl> <49A8272D.2060400@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C48@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <49A83172.70105@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C70@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C70@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 19:43:29.0478 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA257660:01C99913]
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 19:43:11 -0000

Stan,

The difference is not geo footprint (you got that right).  Rather the 
difference is between LAN (at fringe of network) and WAN (in the 
interior).  A WAN will always be at least one router away from end 
systems. 

While we're at it, references to SSIDs is not proper -- that's 
802.11-specific. 

Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:31 PM
>> To: Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
>> Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; Teco Boot; autoconf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
>>
>> Stan Ratliff (sratliff) a écrit :
>>     
>>>> Well I agree the physical laws are so.  But I disagree to 
>>>>         
>> have 25km  
>>     
>>>> MANETs in the Charter.  I agree with "25m IPv6 subnets", 
>>>>         
>> if they were 
>>     
>>>> explicitely stated so in the charter.
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> And I'll have to disagree with the "25m subnets". I regularly deal 
>>> with line-of-sight radio links that are in excess of 25km. We can't 
>>> limit ourselves to short-range technologies (e.g. 
>>>       
>> Commercial 802.11,  
>>     
>>> Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc). I don't believe a distance should be 
>>> explicitly stated in the charter, rather, some verbiage that talks 
>>> about "radio neighbors in range" should be sufficient.
>>>       
>> I wouldn't disagree with a Charter mentioning we deal with 
>> 25m IPv6 subnets and with 30.000km IPv6 subnets, and here are 
>> the two practical methods to put addresses on these nodes.
>>
>> But I would disagree with a Charter saying we deal with all 
>> wireless links ranging from personal area to sattellite and 
>> everything in between
>>   and the generic addressing model is the following...
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>     
>
>
> Hmmm, that's a problem. Because I don't see a difference in a 3m subnet using Bluetooth, and a 35,000km "subnet" using a satellite with IP routing on board. I think the charter needs to solve the problem for both of those, because I believe the distance of the link shouldn't be a factor. 
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
>
>   
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
>   

-- 
Rex Buddenberg
Senior Lecturer
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, Ca 93943
831/656-3576