Re: [Autoconf] Conclusion: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-02.txt

[Ryuji Wakikawa <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

On 2010/02/16, at 12:41, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> ThomasC, oh sorry, so the problem statement document is going to happen later?  We're not yet at that stage?

Thomas means a problem statement document for the future solution space, since you start explaining solution spaces.
The addr-model document is not a solution. There is no need to have a problem statement at this stage.

> And in this "IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks" we don't even mention multicast addresses, as if the multicast address were not an address?
> 
> Sorry for disturbing but my remark was really gentle, I thought the draft could easily mention multicast address.
> 
> I sometimes feel that the more I ask a thing the less it gets accepted.  IT must be because it comes from me :-)

Not at all. We cannot adapt comments only when there is less supporter. 
We have to move forward based on the consensus. 

> I will shut up maybe things will happen better :-)

:-)

regards,
ryuji

> 
> Alex
> 
> Le 16/02/2010 21:35, Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :
>> Dear Alex,
>> 
>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 21:29 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> 
>>> Le 16/02/2010 21:23, Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :
>>>> Dear Alex,
>>>> 
>>>> Autoconf is about configuring addresses on interfaces, not on
>>>> allocating addresses in a registry, not sending IP packets to
>>>> multicast destinations.
>>> 
>>> Thomas, thank you for the reply.
>>> 
>>> Link-layer multicast mechanisms are used in any autoconfing (DHCPv6,
>>> SLAAC, probably more) mechanism.
>>> 
>>> A stack booting up sends packets to multicast destinations.
>>> 
>>> MANET already allocates a multicast address for this.
>>> 
>>> Suffices it to mention it.
>>> 
>> 
>> These reflections belong properly in the problem-statement/scoping and
>> solution-space discussions -- hopefully, we will be able to get to those
>> (the fun part: building protocols) soon. So hold that thought until later.
>> 
>>> Otherwise leave place for non-understanding: will the IPv6 autoconf
>>> stack use the MANET multicast address? Or the other non-MANET multicast
>>> address?
>> 
>> If I configure my addresses manually, as is one viable option, I can
>> follow the recommendations in
>> draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-02.txt and have a valid
>> configuration. In that case, the "configuration mechanism" needs no
>> multicast. I note that this may apply more to IPv4 than IPv6, and that
>> the document covers both.
>> 
>> If a MANET autoconfiguration protocol needs to exchange information for
>> proper functioning - which it may well do - then that protocol will have
>> to decide on which addresses, messages and algorithms to use for that.
>> So again, these reflections belong properly in the
>> problem-statement/scoping and solution-space discussions.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Thomas
>> 
>>> I mostly agree with you.
>>> 
>>> And there are two different people here (Teco, myself) saying
>>> approximately the same thing about multicast. The autoconf group is not
>>> large. Are two opinions worth ignoring?
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> 
>>>> Thomas
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 21:20 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Le 16/02/2010 21:01, Jari Arkko a écrit :
>>>>>> Great. Lets move this doc forward!
>>>>> 
>>>>> YEs, let's move this forward and add multicast discussion to it
>>>>> without which autoconf can't fly. Multicast is what typical
>>>>> autoconfiguration protocols use today without which they'd never
>>>>> work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Multicast is what IPv6 got builtin precisely for the reason of
>>>>> autoconfing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This draft being silent about multicast spells it's not autoconf,
>>>>> IMHO.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alex
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jari
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ryuji Wakikawa kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We have concluded the WGLC of
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-01.txt on Dec/23/09, and
>>>>>>> have a -02 document issued, following up on this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks to all for all the reviews and comments to this
>>>>>>> document!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> After Thomas and I (Chairs) carefully reviewed discussions on
>>>>>>> the mailing list, we do find that there is rough consensus for
>>>>>>> the current document.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There was an individual objection to the description of the
>>>>>>> use of link-local address, but we did not detect wide support
>>>>>>> within the working group. This objection will, of course, be
>>>>>>> reflected in the PROTO write-up that will be sent to the IESG
>>>>>>> and the ADs, and reflected in the tracker.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As a conclusion, we have established rough consensus to the
>>>>>>> new document.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The WG chairs will start preparing the PROTO writeup for
>>>>>>> forwarding the document.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> WG chairs
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
>>>>>> list [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
>>>>> list [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Autoconf mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf