IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome

Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Fri, 26 July 2013 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C8E21F847C; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.933
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3f3xXn3rdrBI; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x233.google.com (mail-oa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B3521F893E; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i4so6698237oah.24 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=tVUgw7LV/elUiXwNrPiU0LzVCKkxX8HdnNxaYtXDcfQ=; b=MS9k7/jm3zafQmP3QOVcFQpSx370Nz7zZQ+4WqRQijwbw2WIPHKQ90Ye41Exdf1+FL lAilnJ/SjIWRORGbm5tugQBrC7lw2WUiQYgOKWg7pHpu3NgysdjpOpFBSyzdKHXXfxjm f60ozYNYScAK1rSlzOvuO3e5HRDw5PHNk4Aq97IOoAXcPaKV1tNRC4rF0MfKXBYsH4Mo xQbfktEfYg59DKB0ob5cC4VOZyuD4C89HL0ZY8tklERCk4fHTui9qki8ah3MD3cEJ4X1 73c9dc4nA19qAuQoc8bWJHChIRMQuQIersVfnjGH+l7Yc7JOfnqgQDb5zWlEKifthK/S 1Yvg==
X-Received: by 10.182.176.34 with SMTP id cf2mr40726752obc.45.1374828645511; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.82.133 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <23549.1374781215@sandelman.ca>
References: <CAK=bVC_Fdq9=bEg1+_2bqFgV_3EmMQ12vt8_+0mS1coxotsf-g@mail.gmail.com> <23549.1374781215@sandelman.ca>
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:50:25 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Y6d_l4PKpGleSKZEtKvWBnGGALA
Message-ID: <CANK0pbYTMjS-u9tft52sGtijJT0YtLfQTTiOY2zF28LUcrQpbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1cf820af8e204e2663d33"
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:50:47 -0000

Hi Michael,

actually, MANET protocols have been working for years to provide mesh-over
routing, without multi-link subnets.

To understand better the "link" properties you have to deal with, you could
take a look at this draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-02

As Ulrich mentioned, the conclusion of AUTOCONF was that IP links as we
know them do *not* make sense in a spontaneous wireless multi-hop
environment.

This conclusion was documented in RFC 5889, which essentially bans the use
of subnet prefixes in this environment. And without subnet prefixes, what
is the purpose of an IP link? Not much...

Best,

Emmanuel




On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>wrote:

>
> Ulrich, thank for starting a new thread on this topic as I asked.
>
> I am looking forward to understanding how we can do mesh-over networking
> without creating multi-link subnets.
>
> It might just be that we need to always auto-configure /128 addresses on
> the
> interfaces, and use /128 routes everywhere.
> That's what my code does in order to implement multi-link subnets.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email