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

Emmanuel Baccelli <> Mon, 09 August 2010 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E85B3A694A for <>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id waHiixT44GJx for <>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C063828C10D for <>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyb7 with SMTP id 7so4012847eyb.31 for <>; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=h0BQU4wz8s8bQBImeCMr2FiverRN2aiZSEhgNhUP8UM=; b=pIawzyfMevASzbsOYnU8iv1cyFd69Ifr3ehMl2Bk+sxFJJZozKHhmqnvBWfCQYlFUe 8LKgkJpTMQpvFYc3rfPBRcFyYFW/3TPfEVlIhxJLM05ukfa+Jg1JneXNj0NIyGRm8ybl WrD/MrjrfELLSgpUAz3SE6aF3LBJidNMUOcQk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=L7kMUTFyTwYupA+Ax5555Uy4i1p6USaHbcOHRusS3ddd4LwVpjPrtvJPmAjLu8ZHTg 0CwiyWDTqO7ntFDD/XCu0KRkjmVyQFbZqTgSlDGCMPCw8Rv8EHKTZPUgpI9hJOWUvPxD fqBtuJftx/fgxmikE7DiQTQjLhitf49Mm26Pk=
Received: by with SMTP id 16mr11756316ebp.17.1281374991542; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 19:29:30 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: KCggLE7XOPztKWHWeq4P37azNJQ
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174a0fa231ec9d048d675d7a
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: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:29:19 -0000

Hi Charlie,

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Charles E. Perkins <> wrote:
> Surely, "configuring" routers and hosts should be
> done differently.

We are in agreement here ;)

>  This does NOT imply:
> (a) hosts should be barred from using the address
>    allocation protocol established for MANET routers, or

we are also in agreement here.

> (b) hosts should run useless router code in order to
>    make use of said address allocation protocol, or

same as above: violent agreement.

> (c) the [autoconf] address allocation protocol design
>    should proceed on the assumption that non-routing
>    hosts are out of scope.

here on the other hand, I think I disagree. It is a priori more difficult to
provide autoconfiguration for nodes which have heterogeneous capabilities,
rather than to provide an autoconfiguration solution for nodes which have
homogeneous capabilities -- especially if nodes all have the most
capabilities, i.e. they are all routers.

So at this point, either (i) there is priori art that
provides autoconfiguration for nodes which have heterogeneous capabilities,
and then let's consider it, or (ii) there is no prior art and then let's do
the easiest step first: focus on providing an autoconfiguration solution for
routers. Provided that your points (a) and (b) are agreed on, does this make
sense to you?

I remember you mentioning that there is indeed prior art. The way I
understand it, this prior art is something that the effort stemming from
second item in the proposed charter should seriously consider.