Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Thu, 26 August 2010 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70BC53A686B for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OYdB2Yx3njgy for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7211C3A6892 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so1609493ewy.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.76.16 with SMTP id a16mr7477979ebk.90.1282846028560; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.150] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm4463134eei.0.2010.08.26.11.07.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4C7672BB.2080608@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:07:04 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4A2DBD8D-953F-4C02-9FEE-EC91D22E9588@inf-net.nl>
References: <AANLkTi=MZORvNSW7wHdHYOzkOwNZojBars26GfSPgWc9@mail.gmail.com><ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D035CA5CE@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <7ir5hoc4wq.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D03609162@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C74EAD5.7060300@gmail.com> <90FAFCBF-7DEA-419E-8B0D-514EE8021B0B@inf-net.nl> <4C753EC6.40800@gmail.com> <61F3EA79-9B63-46A9-856F-45478EA22043@inf-net.nl> <4C7672BB.2080608@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889modifications
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:06:45 -0000

Alex,

In my environment, host don't use TCP very often. My apps use UDP.
Internet core routers often use BGP, which run on TCP.
Let's stick on more commonly used differentiators.
Like forwarding packets, sending RA or sending routing protocol packets.

Teco


Op 26 aug 2010, om 15:57 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende geschreven:

> Le 26/08/2010 14:31, Teco Boot a écrit :
>> Alex,
>> 
>> You could take some time for research, on hosts having a routing
>> table. Take a start with host requirements (RFC 1122): |  As an
>> extra feature, a host IP layer MAY implement a table |  of "static
>> routes".
> 
> Ah well spot.  In practice that is actually a MUST - every IP stack has
> a table of routes, be it ran by Hosts or by Routers.  There's no IP
> stack without routing table.
> 
> This is one reason why I think it's difficult to identify a Host which
> is not a Router, nor a Router which is not a Host.
> 
> Probably one could call a Host a Host if it does more TCP instructions
> during 1 second, than routing instructions.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> Teco
>> 
>> Op 25 aug 2010, om 18:03 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende
>> geschreven:
>> 
>>> Le 25/08/2010 15:21, Teco Boot a écrit :
>>>> Alex,
>>>> 
>>>> Your statement is not accurate. You say: "A router with
>>>> [whatever] is a router to. Would someone doubt on that?
>>> 
>>> Right, a router is a router - always valid.
>>> 
>>> A "machine" with static routes is a router too.
>>> 
>>>> If you intended to say:
>>>>> A node with static routes (no routing protocol messages) is a
>>>>> router too.
>>>> 
>>>> This is definitely not true. Every host may have static routes.
>>> 
>>> Right.  That's why I tend to accept that there are no Hosts in this
>>> world and they're all routers, because they all execute longest
>>> prefix match searches in their routing tables, they all have at
>>> least two interfaces (lo is one), they all have entries in their
>>> routing tables.
>>> 
>>> They're all routers, Hosts don't exist.
>>> 
>>>> I call a node a router if it: - may forward packets; - may send
>>>> routing protocol packets; - may send router advertisements.
>>>> 
>>>> Reworded: a host - may not forward packets; - may not send
>>>> routing protocol packets; - may not send router advertisements.
>>> 
>>> Ah "may" makes it impossible to really distinguish.
>>> 
>>>> I have device here on my desk. It is called a Wireless-N Home
>>>> Router. I use it as WiFi AP, Ethernet switch and DHCP server. I
>>>> don't use it for forwarding packets, because on the yellow
>>>> marked port it does some nasty NAPT operations, which I can't use
>>>> in my setup. Shall I bring it back to the shop, and ask for a
>>>> Wireless-N Home Host?
>>> 
>>> HA haha!!  I doubt shop vendor understands "Host" because s/he
>>> never sells Hosts to anyone!  S/he could sell Routers, Switches,
>>> Desktops, Servers ; or it could Host your website if you wish.
>>> But never sell you a Host.  Who sells Hosts?
>>> 
>>>> It: - may forward packets, but I disabled it; - may send routing
>>>> protocol packets, but I disabled it; - may send router
>>>> advertisements, but I doubt if it supports IPv6.
>>> 
>>> But that Access Point does have routing table entries, does
>>> execute the longest prefix match algorithm, hence it's a Router.
>>> 
>>>> By the way, if I use packet forwarding, NAPT and MAC NAT, it
>>>> acts as a host on the Internet port.
>>> 
>>> In a sense.  What do you mean it "acts as a Host on the Internet
>>> port"? What does NAPT does as algorithm, data structures, which a
>>> Router does not, on the Internet port?
>>> 
>>>> Providers can't detect it is a router, it is all hidden. Powerful
>>>> feature, for where providers don't allow routers connected to
>>>> their networks.
>>> 
>>> Hmm...
>>> 
>>> I think also, as you say, that it is good to distinguish it based
>>> on sending RA or NA: if it sends RA then it's a Router, otherwise
>>> it's a Host; but disabling RAs on a Router doesn't make it a Host
>>> :-) - it makes it an IPv4 Router (another Router :-)
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Teco
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Op 25 aug 2010, om 12:05 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende
>>>> geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>> Le 25/08/2010 10:41, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit :
>>>>>> It's running the routing protocol, and not just listening to
>>>>>> it, but engaging actively in it - sending necessary routing
>>>>>> protocol messages. It's a router.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And a router doesn't necessarily have to run a dynamic routing
>>>>> protocol.  A router with static routes (no routing protocol
>>>>> messages) is a router too.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alex
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf
>>>>> mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>