Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)

Henning Rogge <> Wed, 04 August 2010 05:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6AC3A682D for <>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.373
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYsbRFEUeiYQ for <>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:401:102:1aa9:5ff:fe5f:7f22]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD3E3A6817 for <>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1OgWxU-0006Hn-F4; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:56:08 +0200
Received: from ([] helo=stream.localnet) by with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1OgWxU-0007Mi-6l; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:56:08 +0200
From: Henning Rogge <>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:55:58 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-24-generic; KDE/4.4.5; i686; ; )
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1491998.AFSVff5617"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.96.1/11493/Wed Aug 4 05:08:50 2010) by
X-Scan-Signature: 613e361f9d855afea217a25ae32b219c
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
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 Aug 2010 05:55:42 -0000

On Wed August 4 2010 07:41:01 Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> Hello Henning,
> On 8/3/2010 10:27 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:
> > On Tue August 3 2010 19:56:29 Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> >> The point was raised during the meeting that
> >> any router could pretend to be a host by simply
> >> setting willingness == 0.
> > 
> > This would still be a node sending out HELLO (and maybe even TC messages
> > if it has an attached network), so I would still consider it a router,
> > just with a special configuration.
> This is beside the point. Hosts need addresses,
> and if the only way they can get them is to be
> routers, then something is wrong.
If you run a part of the routing protocol to connect the "host" to the MANET, 
it's a router in my oppinion (Ripple would call it a leaf node for example).

If the node just use DHCP or similar protocols to get it's address without 
being modified to work with the MANET, it's no router (and don't need the 
autoconf address model).

The autoconf model is NOT the only way for a host to get an address for 
connection to a MANET.

> >> It was not explained why an energy-constrained
> >> device should have to implement thousands of lines
> >> of code just so it could have the privilege of
> >> being called a router when it should never ever
> >> be configured to forward packets.
> > 
> > I think the problem is that the scope of the address model has no clear
> > border.
> The scope is difficult to define -- that's the
> problem.  The ad hoc network could be defined as the
> union of the ranges of the nodes in it, and then
> the border to be the border of that set (neglecting
> certain details).  This still does not materially
> explain why a host should implement all that code.
I don't remember that anyone demands that such "leaf nodes" have to run the 
complete routing daemon.

If you have a router with a policy that limits the routers functionality (in 
terms of the routing protocol), you could just write a compact/optimized 
version of the needed software part for it.

> > It should be done on the routers (but MANETs can and have been run
> > with different address models), and it could be used for hosts closely
> > attached to a MANET, but it's not necessary to do so.
> What is "it"?
The autoconf address model should be used on routers (but you could use a 
different one) and it (the address model) could be used on hosts attached to a 
MANET, but it's not necessary to use the autoconf address model on hosts.
> > But in my opinion it is still better it's still better to restrict the
> > title as suggested in the WG meeting consensus that to make it too
> > generic.
> I can't imagine any non-political reason whatsoever for this.
If we do otherwise we could have the same problems. People would say "you 
demand that any computer attached to your MANET use the autoconf address 
model. But we have to use DHCP, so your address model is wrong."
(I don't say they are right, but we will get people with strange comments on 
the address model with both titles)

Henning Rogge

Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0