Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"
Fred Templin <osprey67@yahoo.com> Tue, 25 November 2003 15:08 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20940 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:08:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOenn-0006fR-QQ for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:08:33 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAPF8VqU025623 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:08:31 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOenn-0006fC-Eh for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:08:31 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20824 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:08:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOenk-0006NF-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:08:28 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOenk-0006NB-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:08:28 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOenK-0006Vs-Pt; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:08:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOemL-0006I4-T5 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:07:01 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20655 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:06:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOemJ-0006Lg-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:06:59 -0500
Received: from web80510.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.79.80]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOemI-0006Kt-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:06:58 -0500
Message-ID: <20031125150550.46577.qmail@web80510.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [63.197.18.101] by web80510.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:05:50 PST
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:05:50 -0800
From: Fred Templin <osprey67@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"
To: ipv6@ietf.org, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com, osprey67@yahoo.com
In-Reply-To: <3FC3614F.8080100@iprg.nokia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-886304300-1069772750=:45636"
Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Whoops! I got just a tad bit overboard in my message and need to add some balance. There will still be *plenty* of simple hosts in the new paradigm that neither need nor want to be considered as "routers" or "ROUTERS". They will include things like my home printer, my home security system, my car's speedomeer, etc. These will be good candidates for an IPv6 local addressing scheme of some sort. Fred Templin osprey67@yahoo.com ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com> wrote: The v6ops discussion from the 'draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt' thread took on an interesting twist that I felt warranted a new subject heading. RFC 2461 specifies the behavior of traditional routers (i.e., "ROUTERS"). "ROUTERS" typically advertise autoconfig parameters and prefixes from their attached networks. Hosts use them to reach off-link nodes via default or more-specific routes. But, a new breed of routers (i.e., "routers") is emerging from paradigms such as Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. "routers" typically advertise host routes only (aka, "addresses" or "locators") and no prefix or autoconfig parameters at all. I talked about this dichotomy several years ago in my writings in the MANET wg and in some of the contract work I did at SRI International. The dichotomy is also discussed in documents such as the "global6" work by Charles Perkins and his colleagues. But, the notion of "routers" has really been around for decades and is quite well known in some circles. In the MANET paradigm, "routers" often have only a single network interface which may be used for multi-hop forwarding within a flat addressing space (i.e., using host routes and redirects to steer the multi-hop forwarding decisions) while "ROUTERS" are used to reach other off-link networks. But, the same paradigm can be applied to the emerging global IPv6 Internet. In particular, I believe we will soon see an emerging paradigm for IPv6 in which most (if not all) nodes will be "routers" and a smaller subset of the nodes will be "ROUTERS". A node can qualify as a "router" IFF it has the proper credentials so that other nodes can guard against redirection attacks. The NOID approach specifies a method by which "routers" may attain the proper credentials (it also supports site-multihoming as an added attraction): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-01.txt "routers" will also need a means for distributing host routes w/o including the normal information traditional "ROUTERS" advertise. The "Default Router Preferences, More-Specific Routers and Load Sharing" approach specifies the necessary mechanisms: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt So, what is missing? It would be desireable for a node sending an RFC 2461 Router Solicitation to be able to specify whether "ROUTER" or "router" information (or both) was being solicited. This function can be accommodated by either providing a codepoint (i.e., 1-2 bits) in the existing Router Solicitation message or a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery message type (call it a "Type II Router Solicitaiton" for lack of a better name.) Perhaps this isn't even needed; I would be happy to let others comment. So, where does the "all nodes are routers" model lead us? To an IPv6 Internet with end-to-end security, site multihoming, multi-hop forwarding capability, and a restoration of the end-to-end principles. I think we need to get on board with this, folks... Fred ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Fred Templin
- Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Havard Eidnes
- Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Fred Templin
- RE: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Havard Eidnes
- Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Fred Templin
- RE: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Christian Huitema
- Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Havard Eidnes
- Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Zefram
- RE: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Christian Huitema
- RE: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Lowell Gilbert
- RE: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Amoakoh Gyasi-Agyei
- Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Nick 'Sharkey' Moore
- Re: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers") Erik Nordmark
- Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Mark Smith
- Stop "ROUTERS" vs "routers" discussion in v6ops [… Pekka Savola
- Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" Pekka Savola
- routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers") Fred Templin
- Re: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers") Pekka Savola
- Re: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers") Fred Templin
- Re: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers") Fred Templin
- Re: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers") Fred Templin
- Re: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers") Fred Templin
- RE: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers") Tony Hain
- Re: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers") Matt Crawford