Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

On Tue June 29 2010 06:20:28 Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
> Description of Working Group:
> 
> RFC 5889 presents one possible IPv6 addressing model for ad hoc nodes. In
> this model the ad hoc routers need to configure their network interface(s)
> with addresses valid in the ad hoc network, and may configure additional
> prefixes for use by attached nodes.
> 
> After completing the work on RFC 5889, the main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG
> is to standardize how existing IPv6 address configuration tools can be
> used for address configuration:
> 
> 1. A DHCPv6-based mechanism for configuring required interface addresses
> for the routers in the ad hoc network. This mechanism is expected to
> produce addresses with properties outlined in RFC 5889. This mechanism
> uses the existing DHCPv6 protocol unchanged, and assumes a central node
> that can allocate addresses on a first-come-first-served basis. Other
> nodes in the ad hoc network will relay messages to the central node in
> order to help a new node get an address for itself. This mechanism is only
> suitable for deployments were a central node can be set up. It should be
> noted that many existing deployments employ Internet gateways that can act
> as such a central node as well. Future extensions such as central node
> election may make this mechanism suitable for also for stand-alone ad hoc
> networks.
I don't think elections are a good way to add redundancy for an address 
configuration system. The dependency of a single node in the whole network to 
configure the addresses will be a bottleneck for larger mesh networks.

> 2. A DHCPv6-based mechanism for delegating a prefix(es) to each router for
> use by applications running on the routers themselves, or for
> configuration of attached hosts/networks. This mechanism works in a
> similar manner to the one above, but allocates prefixes instead of
> addresses.

I don't see a difference between 1 and 2, for IPv6 case 1 is just case 2 with 
a prefix length of 128 (or 64 if we use the IPv6 autoconf postfix).

--------------
Does this proposal mean the autoconf group will not work on a distributed 
address configuration scheme for mesh networks ?

Henning Rogge
-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon [phone],   Fax [phone]
mailto:[e-mail] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0