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

"Charles E. Perkins" <> Wed, 04 August 2010 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277543A6A27 for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.116
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.483, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7AG56wXxWyMk for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFAD3A6961 for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=smavWyG+gZj7ZHSCkUNDMHuBTcmkVpSLuW/ei85ga1DSVJ33Kq7uJJxhEsixIMd+; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1Oggei-0001wP-LD; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:17:24 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:17:22 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f5203a4cc69b0abe4abb360524137592795350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Cc: "" <>
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 16:17:04 -0000

Hello Teco,

Comments below:

On 8/4/2010 8:37 AM, Teco Boot wrote:

>> What about point-to-point links?
> Even then, a host would not use this link if it is not mentioned in the routing table.

Every host has a routing table.  Do you say
otherwise?  If so, we have no vocabulary.
IPv6 hosts can even have multiple routers
in their routing table.

> You could say a host with one p2p link could set the default gateway automatically.
> But how can the opposite node learn the topology?

Are we getting into solution space?

I didn't even say that a host had to have
a default router.

> If it is a single-homed host, this small setup of only two hosts would work.
> Any other case results in nothing.

Without presenting solutions, I cannot
convince you otherwise.  For this discussion,
suffice it to say that I am 100% certain your
statement is incorrect.

>> I never experienced this with AODV, which
>> could use all point-to-point links.
> So you stop AODV, and AODV still operates???
> Can't be.

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand what
you meant.  Anyway, I wouldn't have
"stopped AODV" unless I broadcast a
directive to all nodes that they must
cease operation.

>> I'm still mystified, unless (as Henning opines)
>> we've strayed into the magical land of politics.
> A node that runs AODV is a router, because AODV is a routing protocol.

I mentioned AODV as a counterexample to your
statement about the infeasibility of running
a network over /128 links.  It does not mean
that I say "AODV" to every question you might

In particular, I claim that hosts in an ad hoc
network often must adhere to the developed
address model.  Of course they don't run AODV
if they're not routers.

> More detailed answer: in AODV, the subnet router is responsible for
> reachability for the subnet.

Where's the subnet?

> In our addressing model, with /128 subnet,
> there is only one node in the subnet, that is the subnet router.
> So the document applies only to routers in ad hoc networks.

Is there some weird magic that requires every
/128 subnet to have an AODV subnet router?
If not, then your conclusion is false.

> Demystified ?

Actually, I am further mystified -- especially
to think that point-to-point routes get so little
respect in this forum, and that anyone might
claim that hosts don't have routing tables.

Do you claim that any program that utilizes
#include <route.h> is a router?

> We can discuss wrongly used _host_ in HIP, DHCP, Host Route etc., if time permits.
> Not for today.

Sounds like fun.

Charlie P.