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

"Charles E. Perkins" <> Wed, 04 August 2010 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6B63A69D9 for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dEIvMHtNTePB for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E603A6978 for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=lVCYXpkYdnKopXT6oJGJXv/jekMF56ZShKigmdXt7bbl/zYKKDoNi8l8CbegAHtd; 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 1OgdhC-0005Lz-QE; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:07:47 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:07:14 -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: Henning Rogge <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f5203ca4987d58e284d9dc9ebeec63157c4350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
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 13:07:19 -0000

Hello Henning,

On 8/3/2010 10:55 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:

> If you run a part of the routing protocol to connect the "host" to the MANET,
> it's a router in my oppinion (Ripple would call it a leaf node for example).

What if your host gets an address by running
"autoconf.exe", which is not a routing program?

> If the node just use DHCP or similar protocols to get it's address without
> being modified to work with the MANET, it's no router (and don't need the
> autoconf address model).

What if the host does not?  Or, do you mean to say
that this discussion is a way to legislate that all
hosts must use DHCP?

> The autoconf model is NOT the only way for a host to get an address for
> connection to a MANET.

The autoconf model for getting addresses doesn't exist.
I sure hope it isn't the only way to get an address.

But suppose at some point there is an autoconf.exe.
It should be a way for a host to get an address.
Its connection to the MANET would, presumably allow
it to use this address.  Or, do you mean to say that
"address allocation" == "connection"?

> If you have a router with a policy that limits the routers functionality (in
> terms of the routing protocol), you could just write a compact/optimized
> version of the needed software part for it.

	system ("get_address");
	if (routing) fail();   /* My compact routing code */

Am I a router?

>>> It should be done on the routers (but MANETs can and have been run
>>> with different address models), and it could be used for hosts closely
>>> attached to a MANET, but it's not necessary to do so.
>> What is "it"?
> The autoconf address model should be used on routers (but you could use a
> different one) and it (the address model) could be used on hosts attached to a
> MANET, but it's not necessary to use the autoconf address model on hosts.

It's necessary for hosts to adhere to the
considerations detailed in the address model
document.  I'm not sure if this is the same
as "using" it.

>>> But in my opinion it is still better it's still better to restrict the
>>> title as suggested in the WG meeting consensus that to make it too
>>> generic.
>> I can't imagine any non-political reason whatsoever for this.
> If we do otherwise we could have the same problems. People would say "you
> demand that any computer attached to your MANET use the autoconf address
> model. But we have to use DHCP, so your address model is wrong."

This is a political argument not based on the needs
of the addressability, connectivity, or goals of
making an ad hoc network.  Insofar as you may be
nonetheless correct, I begin to believe that I have
zero insight into the technical goals of the discussion.

> (I don't say they are right, but we will get people with strange comments on
> the address model with both titles)

Please tell me if my comments are "strange".

Charlie P.