Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889 modifications

Teco Boot <> Tue, 24 August 2010 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6E13A6936 for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.506
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pko5mBZE+yBC for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1A43A68DE for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so3518544eyd.31 for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t3mr4072356eba.63.1282648172178; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id z55sm12572149eeh.3.2010. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:09:29 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: reshmi r <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889 modifications
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: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:09:02 -0000


The outcome was we didn't agree on what makes a node a router
or a host. And time is too costly to find out.
Some say we only have routers attached to links with undetermined 
characteristics. Others say hosts run OADV.
In IPv6, there are some rules for hosts, e.g. RFC 5942:
|   In IPv6, an address is on-link (with respect to a specific link), if
|   the address has been assigned to an interface attached to that
|   link.
Now we have an addressing model that says:
|   No on-link subnet prefix is configured on this interface.

We have to find out how hosts can use the addressing model. And how
routers deal with such hosts. At least it is not clear to me right now.

Regards, Teco

Op 24 aug 2010, om 06:44 heeft reshmi r het volgende geschreven:

> Hi Teco,
> Do they really mean a model for the autoconfiguration and is there is
> no role for host in autoconfiguration??........the topic goes in to
> real debate. what was the final outcome of the discussion???.
> Hi All,
> Can anyone finalise the suggested outcomes of the discussion??Do you
> all really mean that the routers only need to do the autoconfiguration
> and the nodes have no role in it??? If so how can we believe a router
> to be genuine and how can we ensure that the router will never become
> selfish??? so there should be some role in hosts to monitor the
> traffic behaviour of router and the host should be able to notify with
> some protocol mechanism. do you all really mean to change the title???
> I strongly disagree with this.
> Rgds,
> Reshmi.
> Hi Thomas,
> On the title change, I remember in Maastricht all accept one
> preferred the title change. On the list as well.
> There are two arguments.
> 1) it is _a_ model
> 2) the model doesn't support hosts, or at least not very well
> On the latter, there was a discussion without outcome.
> Regards, Teco
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list