Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)

HyungJin Lim <> Wed, 04 March 2009 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9053A68AA; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:51:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.404
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.194, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id trTX7bXxIj8h; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B583A684E; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:51:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 11so3455894tim.25 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:52:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=B4dEyZzQIwT/bpfCTKHtD/smJlvq+uJMumBPLeWE9MY=; b=hINSaV451lOkSagUjCns0CMjdOFY1c87gi7+nRh0XbBO/tdGoj8tdh3t0AZyOliffW Np/3IT7+elRWEtM63bqWXQVIbgbZubUlTODt7AwOHahDPtVG10OiglMSpvp+swurtoWj DZ1Y3fITloVHLtyOMYW3BYXaw26lm2dDIVft8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ns3xHwxdwpbZq8pytALxjaIHzFXVpEQ2+JhoNOkwCvkWMQkfAb4xhpIx094CoX+1mv 3PftpJfBQ1l/1glowKmAts/N4tSjrDV+9zbWsXtTShCFNV+X+K9wDTwkWBNU/CfHlG5f 7nuGF2ue5VIUdpJ954s9LNiZObMlIDQrH9zAY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id f5mr663479tia.49.1236210726589; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:52:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 08:52:06 +0900
Message-ID: <>
From: HyungJin Lim <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f01d6039f76a046453bd37
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
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 Mar 2009 23:51:40 -0000


2009/3/5 IESG Secretary <>

> A modified charter has been submitted for the Ad-Hoc Network
> Autoconfiguration working group in the Internet Area of the IETF.  The
> IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The modified charter is
> provided below for informational purposes only.  Please send your comments
> to the IESG mailing list ( by Wednesday, March 11, 2009.
> Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Last Modified: 2009-02-18
> Current Status: Active Working Group
> Additional information is available at
> Chair(s):
> Ryuji Wakikawa []
> Thomas Clausen []
> Internet Area Director(s):
> Jari Arkko []
> Mark Townsley []
> Internet Area Advisor:
> Jari Arkko []
> Mailing Lists:
> General Discussion:
> To Subscribe:
> Archive:
> Description of Working Group:
> In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
> 2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local addresses
> that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may also need to
> configure globally routable addresses, in order to communicate with
> devices on the Internet. From the IP layer perspective, an ad hoc
> network presents itself as a L3 multi-hop network formed over a
> collection of links.

In here, I have a question !
What's meaning of globally routable addresses ?
I think globally routable addresses should include topologically correct
address and topologically incorrect address.
The reason I address this is that the NEMO basic support should configure
topologically incorrect address in nested NEMO.
But topologically incorrect address is also globally routable addresses if
it a packet forwarding mechanism (e.g., tunneling) is supported, not packet
routing(e.g. OLSR, DYMO, etc.).

> The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the addressing model
> for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure their
> addresses. It is required that such models do not cause problems for ad
> hoc-unaware parts of the system, such as standard applications running
> on an ad hoc node or regular Internet nodes attached to the ad hoc
> nodes. This group's effort may include the development of new protocol
> mechanisms, should the existing IP autoconfiguration mechanisms be found
> inadequate. However, the first task of the working group is to describe
> one practical addressing model for ad hoc networks.

What's meaning of practical addressing model ?
Should we consider practical scenarios for practical addressing model in
real world ?
The only simplest scenario can satisfy requirements and other aspects in
more complex scenario which include Internet connectivity, nested pattern,
group mobility, wireless coverage, and so on.

I would like suggest to define some requirements for practical scenarios.
Then, the simplest scenario also can be considered as a base topic I think.

Hyung-Jin, Lim

> Once this sole work item is completed, the group can be rechartered to
> work on additional issues.
> Goals and Milestones:
> Apr 2009 Submit initial draft on address configuration in ad hoc networks
> Sep 2009 Submit address configuration draft to IESG as Informational or
> close WG
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list