From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 03:30:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE813A6856; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:30:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.068 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.495, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 LMfEIoZUNIyj; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:30:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C09A63A6ABE; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:30:01 -0800 (PST) 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 780C13A6856 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:30:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 2DgSiS-Fov3e for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:29:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout3.samsung.com (mailout3.samsung.com [203.254.224.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41AE28C2A5 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:29:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from epmmp1 (mailout3.samsung.com [203.254.224.33]) by mailout3.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JX9006F499EFR@mailout3.samsung.com> for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:29:38 +0900 (KST) Received: from Shubhranshu ([107.108.82.43]) by mmp1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0JX90077J99DP4@mmp1.samsung.com> for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:29:38 +0900 (KST) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:02:59 +0530 From: Shubhranshu To: autoconf@ietf.org Message-id: <015301c87eb4$ab361340$2b526c6b@sisodomain.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Subject: [Autoconf] IETF 71 Autoconf WG Agenda X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0271716227==" Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0271716227== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_znYlg4UBWZMmaR4HW3/9Ug)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_znYlg4UBWZMmaR4HW3/9Ug) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The WG meeting agenda has been uploaded and is available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/autoconf.txt Please let the chairs or the list know if you have any comments or agenda item. I'll upload the presentation material once I receive them from presenters. Thanks, Shubhranshu --Boundary_(ID_znYlg4UBWZMmaR4HW3/9Ug) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
The WG meeting agenda has been uploaded and is available at
 
Please let the chairs or the list know if you have any comments
or agenda item.
 
I'll upload the presentation material once I receive them from
presenters.
 
Thanks,
Shubhranshu
--Boundary_(ID_znYlg4UBWZMmaR4HW3/9Ug)-- --===============0271716227== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --===============0271716227==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 12 12:14:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21213A6951; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:14:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 a5IynHUfhfTD; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC223A688D; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:14:11 -0700 (PDT) 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 60B8F3A68BE for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:14:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 5bdyeLC5tL0S for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD603A686A for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=TwuGqPKO9bkXflXUqB+C/JPz2nbE2meRlZXgWz1FojKW3reCFKCsJJtgtVtLXlfK; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [130.129.86.31] (helo=[130.129.86.31]) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.34) id 1JZWMd-0000lc-Fj; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:11:47 -0400 Message-ID: <47D82AF5.9080507@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:11:49 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Perkins Consulting User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: autoconf@ietf.org X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f524a1be32d53499bd1d6bd78dde0d60e02350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 130.129.86.31 Cc: Ryuji Wakikawa Subject: [Autoconf] A description for a link-type of interest X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello folks, At the meeting I heard that it would be good idea for document authors to make a description of the types of links that their solution was intended to work over. Here is a first attempt to describe the links over which our solution (including a sort of multi-link NDP) should work. Properties of "link" for multi-hop NDP solution [Wakikawa/Perkins] - Subnet aggregation is not necessarily easy to define, and so we do not rely on the traditional properties of subnets - Nodes can transmit IP packets to "neighbors", which are directly accessible via local communications channels established by layer-1 and layer-2 protocols - A node's physical broadcasts are detectable by all nodes that are sufficiently close by and equipped with the requisite hardware (e.g, demodulators, amplifiers, transducers, etc.) - Multicast groups may be defined, but for sparse multicast groups there may not be any existing mechanism for multicast tree maintenance. Dense multicast groups may be handled by flooding. Local/neighborhood multicast groups are handled by physical broadcasts which are not forwarded. =============================== Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 13 16:16:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F083A6EE6; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:16:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.788 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 TjpzLNPe9zGH; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F5628C939; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:15:59 -0700 (PDT) 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 41CBE28C939 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:15:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 xBsWeaOemZe0 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 86F6828C8F6 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:14:50 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1205449951!21380002!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.105] Received: (qmail 8682 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2008 23:12:31 -0000 Received: from motgate5.mot.com (HELO motgate5.mot.com) (144.189.100.105) by server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2008 23:12:31 -0000 Received: from az33exr01.mot.com (az33exr01.mot.com [10.64.251.231]) by motgate5.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id m2DNCQ2W013197; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:12:26 -0700 (MST) Received: from az10vts01 (az10vts01.mot.com [10.64.251.242]) by az33exr01.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id m2DNCPG0016590; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:12:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.19.236.178]) by az33exr01.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id m2DNCNpS016577; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:12:24 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <47D9B4D5.2010601@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:12:21 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: charliep@computer.org References: <47D82AF5.9080507@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <47D82AF5.9080507@earthlink.net> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080313-0, 13/03/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, Ryuji Wakikawa Subject: Re: [Autoconf] A description for a link-type of interest and movements X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Charlie, and thanks for the beginning of this description. One general question upfront: can these links be mapped conceptually to an existing layer-2? Can I think that the links you describe below have, to some extent, some relationship with 802.3 MAC? Charles E. Perkins wrote: > Hello folks, > > At the meeting I heard that it would be good idea for document > authors to make a description of the types of links that their > solution was intended to work over. Here is a first attempt to > describe the links over which our solution (including a sort of > multi-link NDP) should work. > > Properties of "link" for multi-hop NDP solution [Wakikawa/Perkins] > > - Subnet aggregation is not necessarily easy to define, and so we do > not rely on the traditional properties of subnets What does this mean? I am not sure about subnet aggregation is easily defined for traditional links in first place. I know about IPv6 aggregation of prefixes, but I'm not sure about subnet aggregation. > - Nodes can transmit IP packets to "neighbors", which are directly > accessible via local communications channels established by layer-1 > and layer-2 protocols I understand this. > - A node's physical broadcasts are detectable by all nodes that are > sufficiently close by and equipped with the requisite hardware (e.g, > demodulators, amplifiers, transducers, etc.) I understand this. I guess IP doesn't care much about mac (layer-2) having to replicate broadcast packets such as to reach neighbors that are not visible at phy (layer-1). > - Multicast groups may be defined, but for sparse multicast groups > there may not be any existing mechanism for multicast tree > maintenance. Dense multicast groups may be handled by flooding. > Local/neighborhood multicast groups are handled by physical > broadcasts which are not forwarded. I'm looking at this from a Ethernet MAC-layer multicast perspective and I don't think there may be needs for dense vs sparse group separation, just have simple groups in the beginning. I'd reserve the dense/sparse separation when we know more precisely the type of one link, then we combine links and see this separation. ------- As a side note, including this in this same thread: Emmanuel said at the meeting that the AUTOCONF subnets are different from subnets where DHCP/ND can be run, mostly because they move around. Can we discuss that movement aspect Emmanuel has mentioned into this link-type description? For example, assume I talk about AUTOCONF link type. AUTOCONF links move around. Whenever they move around, layer-1 and layer-2 make sure AUTOCONF link-type look as a 802.3 MAC to the IP layer, thus hiding that appearance of movement from IP. Is this a safe assumption? If it's not a safe assumption then what kind of movement breaks what. Just some comments, Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 14 08:15:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AA228C8FA; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:15:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.334 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 xd3OyGXqrENv; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8FB28C563; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:15:16 -0700 (PDT) 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 520993A6CB1 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:15:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 Fp6Zta4AJxE6 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server9.hosting2go.nl (server9.hosting2go.nl [83.137.192.232]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A4628C563 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22775 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2008 16:12:45 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO M90Teco) (130.129.82.92) by server9.hosting2go.nl with SMTP; 14 Mar 2008 16:12:45 +0100 From: "Teco Boot" To: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:12:11 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AciF5cbDLY6OdGSzSj283bEvWCGcXQ== Content-Language: nl Subject: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I reread RFC2501 and I think this document is still valid. It describes characteristics of MANETs and MANET links in detail. Both Autoconf documents refer to it. Maybe refer more explicitly to it? When looking at RFC4861, I think a MANET link may have all described link type properties. MANET links may be P2P or multi access, broadcast or non-broadcast, shared or non-shared, can have fixed or variable MTU and may have or may not have asymmetric reachability. In short, nothing is planned (ad hoc) and nothing is stable (mobile). There was posted comment on using term MANET Interface for text that was about links. This is still not corrected in the active MANET-Arch document. I think we should try to line up MANET-Arch and PS with RFC4861 as soon as possible, with ref to RFC2501 when applicable. On lining up the documents: parts of the architecture is in the PS document. I see no reason that section 3. MANET Categories is not part of MANET-Arch. Same comment on section 2. Terminology; information is split in the two documents. I see no reason for this split. A while ago, we discussed an scenario with ad hoc classical, symmetric reachability links only. This could be an important, e.g. supporting plug and play consumer and business gadgets with for example mix of Bluetooth, USB/WUSB, WiFi, WiMAX and 3G technology. MIP6 and NEMO are related to this scenario, but this will only work when HA is reachable, e.g. Subordinate MANET. I am not sure MEXT addresses all requirements, especially when a MANET routing protocol is introduced for supporting disconnected operation and RO within the topology (Nested NEMO RO). The question is, shall we work on this scenario? If yes, it must be included in our documents. Teco. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 17 05:00:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9521F3A67D4; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:00:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.605 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ynK-hptqE1pE; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:00:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE19F3A69B7; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:00:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 B5E043A67D4 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:00:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 7jPxDgFG3mU4 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com (hs-out-0708.google.com [64.233.178.246]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD9A3A69B7 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by hs-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 4so4063607hsl.5 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:57:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=frTt+OCZWd4hF1Foped+DA6wxeAmsSYzteq+Y2TBOro=; b=M7zMx/J5S6UYgTzsgdleyOC0csWez49L7pfPkaMBs3sBkemK9PEcXS0QG79RmX+jztEtfEOdHUwm3jeFtqkz3dgfSHrJcHnLx9HfVfxZimCunBXqFrXf3Q2VjttHv1cbG85ieB8frMTXhfzJ2ogdEt7P9WBswR/togdnAz3exlQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EIp/Aj9CQf709ZuwmnEtAlVb5sFg82diGKft/jFDuuTqI8W0Mw9XT/LlCPEkKu1oEK4RymZGbJ5WnJdFZfKz7KCuEhUfR3+adeeslDFNKh/suw0WL8gMsneXmlmdzwFyHDMq6fiRn6Mu+gRg8JBeGYdandIwLRMBCRJa/d3WyTw= Received: by 10.100.214.15 with SMTP id m15mr32494190ang.30.1205755065439; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.3.13 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:27:45 +0530 From: "Ian Chakeres" To: autoconf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> Cc: "Thomas Heide Clausen \(work\)" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org I'd like to chime in on this conversation by saying that "MANET link" is not a good term. MANET's (and the MANET WG protocols) run over lots of kinds of different physical and logical links. It just so happens that they may also often run over links with asymmetric reachability. If a new "link type" needs to be defined, it should not contain the term MANET. I see link type as an independent concept. Ian Chakeres _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 17 06:14:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F094D3A6D17; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:14:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 zPHBvHtokvxI; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 986103A6B9D; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:14:23 -0700 (PDT) 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 3CCE73A6BDB for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:14:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 5OzJRWRnFW91 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA8C3A6A05 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:14:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF6D19875F; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:11:57 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE93198718; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:11:57 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <47DE6E1B.8050204@piuha.net> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:11:55 +0200 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14ubu (X11/20080306) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Chakeres References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, "Thomas Heide Clausen \(work\)" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Right. Jari Ian Chakeres kirjoitti: > I'd like to chime in on this conversation by saying that "MANET link" > is not a good term. MANET's (and the MANET WG protocols) run over lots > of kinds of different physical and logical links. It just so happens > that they may also often run over links with asymmetric reachability. > > If a new "link type" needs to be defined, it should not contain the > term MANET. I see link type as an independent concept. > > Ian Chakeres > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > > > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 18 08:29:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA673A6F2C; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:29:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.684 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.684 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.247, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 BEu72NulKC6Y; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973413A6F4C; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:29:43 -0700 (PDT) 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 8C1463A6F42 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:29:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 cVNO30CKl6zB for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com (mail153.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B6CE43A6F2C for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1205854039!6915022!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.101] Received: (qmail 9672 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2008 15:27:19 -0000 Received: from motgate2.mot.com (HELO motgate2.mot.com) (144.189.100.101) by server-2.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2008 15:27:19 -0000 Received: from az33exr02.mot.com (az33exr02.mot.com [10.64.251.232]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id m2IFRI0c005435 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:27:18 -0700 (MST) Received: from az10vts03 (az10vts03.mot.com [10.64.251.244]) by az33exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id m2IFRIui011395 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:27:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from zuk35exm62.ds.mot.com (zuk35exm62.ea.mot.com [10.178.4.14]) by az33exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id m2IFRGKY011368 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:27:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.161.201.117]) by zuk35exm62.ds.mot.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2709); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:27:15 +0000 Message-ID: <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:27:15 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Chakeres References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080317-0, 17/03/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2008 15:27:15.0810 (UTC) FILETIME=[8BCC6420:01C8890C] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, "Thomas Heide Clausen \(work\)" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Ian Chakeres wrote: > I'd like to chime in on this conversation by saying that "MANET link" > is not a good term. MANET's (and the MANET WG protocols) run over > lots of kinds of different physical and logical links. It just so > happens that they may also often run over links with asymmetric > reachability. Maybe then trying to describe link-types in the AUTOCONF Architecture is actually listing those kinds of different physical and logical links on which MANET have been run? I have not run MANET. But I ran other IPv6 protocols, and AUTOCONF is not limited to MANET, and the list of link-types I used are the following: Ethernet Bluetooth PPP RS232C USB Alex > > If a new "link type" needs to be defined, it should not contain the > term MANET. I see link type as an independent concept. > > Ian Chakeres _______________________________________________ Autoconf > mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:46:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B8D3A6EF9; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:46:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.968 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.531, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 SOmCBD9RrHse; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47BF3A6EB0; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:46:28 -0700 (PDT) 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 CC68A3A682A for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:46:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 qSEcDYQV3ibg for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com (e2.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.142]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A6C28C64A for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2IIhoEp006840 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:43:50 -0400 Received: from d01av05.pok.ibm.com (d01av05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.195]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m2IIho76238212 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:43:50 -0400 Received: from d01av05.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av05.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m2IIfDDg001140 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:41:13 -0400 Received: from d01ml263.pok.ibm.com (d01ml263.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.113]) by d01av05.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2IIfCpi001137 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:41:12 -0400 From: Andrew Veitch To: autoconf@ietf.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:43:46 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML263/01/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2FP2HF300 | September 14, 2007) at 03/18/2008 14:43:49 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Autoconf] Veitch, Andrew is out of the office. X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org I will be out of the office starting 03/16/2008 and will not return until 03/24/2008. I will respond to your message when I return. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:51:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F893A6E42; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:51:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 xSdeusONu7ka; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821643A6B13; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:50:55 -0700 (PDT) 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 DF1123A6B5A for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:50:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 bljIkRXsM0PA for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.240]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA86F3A6B13 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so82690and.122 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:48:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=U5epBNaN3n0VnrP5xm6KzJerbgD9ADFBbZUiKCZTOFY=; b=sBoJPMicm/JgWLjR89PmIRP0r/SpD094SWhwArn2XDS+wqYAPaKAOdQSVsRSIAcz2xRwI4yByaJ9nnMlwZOenrGQ/gIFAdLOxwWvS32n1jy9QNm9dp73TEWNmIRmsXQ2lb+HG8Cpq2TnX2ndmbkQDSZVxL3P/bn0qZOf52Y55fg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Kb0qge1pup7RGNNvbwa7RwdX6FkFqwyMCSvD6CQ9wZEzUBB3tsuN3jsFdiNusYaPFRR2M0wNShS9vrbztJ+5vLDhZl4M+HH5D+MHtOO71zKa7Fqtd9VNjby4gIy0t0WTG6mQZQpwYsjxpxE5P+RViRZxxoRfrYnPZFPzCybIE3E= Received: by 10.100.91.17 with SMTP id o17mr942766anb.93.1205898509808; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.229.8 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:18:29 +0530 From: Shubhranshu To: "Alexandru Petrescu" In-Reply-To: <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, Thomas Clausen Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Ian Chakeres wrote: > > I'd like to chime in on this conversation by saying that "MANET link" > > is not a good term. MANET's (and the MANET WG protocols) run over > > lots of kinds of different physical and logical links. It just so > > happens that they may also often run over links with asymmetric > > reachability. > > Maybe then trying to describe link-types in the AUTOCONF Architecture is > actually listing those kinds of different physical and logical links on > which MANET have been run? > > I have not run MANET. But I ran other IPv6 protocols, and AUTOCONF is > not limited to MANET, and the list of link-types I used are the following: > > Ethernet > Bluetooth > PPP > RS232C > USB I agree that defining term "MANET link" is not appropriate but I do not see any point in listing all the links on which MANET has been run. MANET has not been run on any particular L2 technology does not imply that MANET cannot run on that technology. I agree that having "IP Link Model" for MANET explained clearly would help here. The challenge is to express precisely, with appropriate terminologies what the MANET community has been assuming while designing and running MANET protocols. The current MANET Architecture document have text on this but since these questions keep coming, I am inclined to think that including more specific text would help. - Shubhranshu > > Alex > > > > > If a new "link type" needs to be defined, it should not contain the > > term MANET. I see link type as an independent concept. > > > > Ian Chakeres _______________________________________________ Autoconf > > mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > > > > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 03:19:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1776D3A6BA3; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:19:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.786 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.349, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ZCgN-y-Kmo1l; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DA93A69EB; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:19:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 AA71D3A69EB for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:19:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 SD52rdx7lqi5 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ABF653A67F2 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:19:36 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1205921838!16262688!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 29476 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2008 10:17:18 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-6.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2008 10:17:18 -0000 Received: from il06exr01.mot.com (il06exr01.mot.com [129.188.137.131]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id m2JAHI0N011455; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:17:18 -0700 (MST) Received: from il06vts02.mot.com (il06vts02.mot.com [129.188.137.142]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/Vontu) with SMTP id m2JAHHGD029782; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:17:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/8.13.0) with ESMTP id m2JAHGGM029750; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:17:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:17:15 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shubhranshu References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080318-1, 18/03/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, Thomas Clausen Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Shubhranshu wrote: > Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> Ian Chakeres wrote: >>> I'd like to chime in on this conversation by saying that "MANET >>> link" is not a good term. MANET's (and the MANET WG protocols) >>> run over lots of kinds of different physical and logical links. >>> It just so happens that they may also often run over links with >>> asymmetric reachability. >> Maybe then trying to describe link-types in the AUTOCONF >> Architecture is actually listing those kinds of different physical >> and logical links on which MANET have been run? >> >> I have not run MANET. But I ran other IPv6 protocols, and AUTOCONF >> is not limited to MANET, and the list of link-types I used are the >> following: >> >> Ethernet Bluetooth PPP RS232C USB > > I agree that defining term "MANET link" is not appropriate but I do > not see any point in listing all the links on which MANET has been > run. How would one otherwise start describing link types? > MANET has not been run on any particular L2 technology does not imply > that MANET cannot run on that technology. > > I agree that having "IP Link Model" for MANET explained clearly would > help here. The challenge is to express precisely, with appropriate > terminologies what the MANET community has been assuming while > designing and running MANET protocols. The current MANET Architecture > document have text on this but since these questions keep coming, I > am inclined to think that including more specific text would help. Well, the current draft does not describe 'link type', neither 'IP Link Model', can't find. What do you mean by current MANET Architecture document having text on this? Which part, thank you. If one understands link types the way people having deployed ND and DHCP understood link types then one wouldn't see a problem in running ND and DHCP on the link types on which MANET runs. Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 04:29:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDBB28C43D; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:29:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 L2f9BOqNb96g; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D62C3A6950; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:29:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 BA94328C110 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:29:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 c7tf11+E8g9G for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.63]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5060E28C417 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=f6pSypIfgkpBxUD3YOvue0aMAxbNU4R6rfW8G9gPIkJWReGeDHOln6gX07sQsOXH; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To: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 [65.33.46.39] (helo=[192.168.1.6]) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JbwQv-0008Tu-3k; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:26:13 -0400 Message-ID: <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:26:10 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Perkins Consulting User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f524e98a3d990e9d72ca376b729cb6e8bd2350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 65.33.46.39 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello Alex, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Shubhranshu wrote: > >> >> I agree that defining term "MANET link" is not appropriate but I do >> not see any point in listing all the links on which MANET has been >> run. >> > > How would one otherwise start describing link types? > I think of them as links over which IP can be run. There is no prior restriction that they must run only protocols defined in [manet] wg, or [dhc] wg for that matter. There is no prior restriction that the addresses used by IP over these links must be able to be aggregated into contiguous address ranges. > If one understands link types the way people having deployed ND and DHCP > understood link types then one wouldn't see a problem in running ND and > DHCP on the link types on which MANET runs. > One can certainly run IP over a link without being required to also run DHCP and/or ND. IP was around for a long time before those two protocols. Moreover, I am sure that we can have useful networks running various manet protocols that do not run DHCP or ND. Of course, as Joe Macker pointed out quite forcefully at the autoconf meeting, we can certainly have manets that DO run DHCP (and, presumably, ND). I'd be very, very surprised and unhappy if someone were able to legislate that manets were REQUIRED to run DHCP or ND. My own opinion is that there are many instances in which it is not at all appropriate to run DHCP (as currently specified), and that these instances are more common percentagewise, perhaps even predominant, in mobile ad-hoc networks. Which in no way implies that one should not consider DHCP when appropriate! Maybe instead of arguing over link types, it would be better to have a task force making a report about when DHCP is appropriate, and let the working group get on with other useful work. Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 06:30:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FD03A6E61; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:30:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.675 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.675 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.238, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 mydNE8HKEcVr; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF963A6AE7; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:30:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 BE7733A6AE0 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:30:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 InPe4xlEXv+a for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com (mail153.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B3D1E3A6E33 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:30:30 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1205933292!4718440!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.101] Received: (qmail 9210 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2008 13:28:13 -0000 Received: from motgate2.mot.com (HELO motgate2.mot.com) (144.189.100.101) by server-8.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2008 13:28:13 -0000 Received: from az33exr02.mot.com (az33exr02.mot.com [10.64.251.232]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id m2JDSCYv018640; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:28:12 -0700 (MST) Received: from az10vts01 (az10vts01.mot.com [10.64.251.242]) by az33exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id m2JDSBTa023150; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:28:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by az33exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id m2JDS981023112; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:28:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <47E114E7.5030209@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:28:07 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: charliep@computer.org References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080318-1, 18/03/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Charles E. Perkins wrote: > > Hello Alex, > > Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> Shubhranshu wrote: >> >>> >>> I agree that defining term "MANET link" is not appropriate but I >>> do not see any point in listing all the links on which MANET has >>> been run. >>> >> >> How would one otherwise start describing link types? >> > > I think of them as links over which IP can be run. There is no prior > restriction that they must run only protocols defined in [manet] wg, > or [dhc] wg for that matter. There is no prior restriction that the > addresses used by IP over these links must be able to be aggregated > into contiguous address ranges. > > >> If one understands link types the way people having deployed ND and >> DHCP understood link types then one wouldn't see a problem in >> running ND and DHCP on the link types on which MANET runs. >> > > One can certainly run IP over a link without being required to also > run DHCP and/or ND. IP was around for a long time before those two > protocols. > > Moreover, I am sure that we can have useful networks running various > manet protocols that do not run DHCP or ND. Of course, as Joe > Macker pointed out quite forcefully at the autoconf meeting, we can > certainly have manets that DO run DHCP (and, presumably, ND). > > I'd be very, very surprised and unhappy if someone were able to > legislate that manets were REQUIRED to run DHCP or ND. Right, not trying to mandate DHCP/ND. It's just that they're always there on in many unix systems and one may have a hard time turning them off. > My own opinion is that there are many instances in which it is not at > all appropriate to run DHCP (as currently specified), and that these > instances are more common percentagewise, perhaps even predominant, > in mobile ad-hoc networks. Which in no way implies that one should > not consider DHCP when appropriate! > > Maybe instead of arguing over link types, it would be better to have > a task force making a report about when DHCP is appropriate, and let > the working group get on with other useful work. I'm trying to identify the overall goals and scope in AUTOCONF. Not sure about a separate task force at this time. I'm having the feeling that much discussion is already happening behind the AUTOCONF scenes and very little at the forefront, in my perception. HEre and now, the size of room for progress is proportional to the gap between what's stated at the meeting/mailing list and what's stated in the documents. This is in my humble opinion. Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 06:52:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158553A6CFA; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:52:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 9E+cHCGZTbCQ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D32728C42D; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:52:32 -0700 (PDT) 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 7BD2128C430 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:52:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 MS3YHpaqkwbg for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4622728C42D for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,524,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="23955627" Received: from ras75-3-82-226-221-97.fbx.proxad.net (HELO BoolfightMaN-Laptop.local) ([82.226.221.97]) by mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Mar 2008 14:50:11 +0100 Message-ID: <47E11A0E.4080701@inria.fr> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:50:06 +0100 From: Emmanuel Baccelli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: autoconf@ietf.org References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello Charlie, Charles E. Perkins a =E9crit : > = > I'd be very, very surprised and unhappy if someone were able to > legislate that manets were REQUIRED to run DHCP or ND. > = > My own opinion is that there are many instances in which it is not > at all appropriate to run DHCP (as currently specified), and that > these instances are more common percentagewise, perhaps even > predominant, in mobile ad-hoc networks. Which in no way implies > that one should not consider DHCP when appropriate! > = > Maybe instead of arguing over link types, it would be better to > have a task force making a report about when DHCP is appropriate, > and let the working group get on with other useful work. > = > Regards, > Charlie P. > = I guess the problem statement draft is supposed to identify if/when DHCP = is appropriate or not. Section 5.1 of the document describes DHCP = limitations in MANETs, so by contraposition, it also talks about cases = when DHCP is appropriate in MANETs ;) Maybe modifications to Section 5 would be a a good starting point to = address the subject? Emmanuel _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 06:55:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DC63A6CFA; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:55:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 zA8CAu3WfgTb; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384C33A685A; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 BBDDB3A6817 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 X63mxRffXVPJ for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server9.hosting2go.nl (server9.hosting2go.nl [83.137.192.232]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D0A3A685A for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 29597 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2008 14:53:03 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO M90Teco) (217.169.232.206) by server9.hosting2go.nl with SMTP; 19 Mar 2008 14:53:03 +0100 From: "Teco Boot" To: References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:52:30 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c889c8$8c5f9d00$a51ed700$@nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AciJtC/aQu3Xj2r2QKy4nOjzXnXIFQAEyPmw Content-Language: nl Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Charlie, I have some thoughts on running IPv6 without ND for link layer address discovery. Qoute: > I'd be very, very surprised and unhappy if someone were able to > legislate that manets were REQUIRED to run DHCP or ND. Can we run IPv4 over Ethernet without ARP? Can we run IPv6 over Ethernet without ND? Should Autoconf work on a protocol for link layer address discovery for MANET links (link between MANET interfaces)? Or snoop L2 header info from for example received NHDP packets? I am with you when you say: let's try to reduce overhead. Regards, Teco _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 20:35:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9A228C1BA; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:35:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 vdUS+QF48kie; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E313A6975; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:35:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 639613A6A42 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:35:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 SYrhjLdgKdBv for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com (ag-out-0708.google.com [72.14.246.242]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88EA73A6A4B for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 23so1334286agd.12 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:32:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=lpkmDWGPu5G3fBMQdDkvXUJ/qhX0TF+xc3vEieRRTGs=; b=VfUipTGTmFyk1prEAkydMplwE/iE7K+B5dHMn1mjdwkLkB+Aa3qaqyqr5/v1GtzRfgS0qjOknl1RcQwmHlI/scRsVnSLGqUdd/fGOXZEqQrtbrSzrr4D2mV76tsoRHDxvhejXYB0SEEaImLEkyK2ChSaqOxxmKjZOw+MU1nsLd8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GznLitzsd1InHc8fP9SjZaklzhtJxcDPihtZ4uETaQ2i+h+pL/rxHrUm+BD+bcwkxYMR4JW6hwzv6pxvfupklMnQC8RmUkDFgrqB01WTn4XytSw1ezn91fHJTNUtdTR7epf1uvlXlmS91tPtX+OXcX5kt4EIvmWdAO3p7tFAvmE= Received: by 10.100.41.4 with SMTP id o4mr3658963ano.86.1205983968711; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.229.8 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:02:48 +0530 From: Shubhranshu To: "Emmanuel Baccelli" In-Reply-To: <47E11A0E.4080701@inria.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> <47E11A0E.4080701@inria.fr> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello Charlie, Emmanuel, Please see inline comments On 3/19/08, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: > Hello Charlie, > > Charles E. Perkins a =E9crit : > > > > I'd be very, very surprised and unhappy if someone were able to > > legislate that manets were REQUIRED to run DHCP or ND. > > > > My own opinion is that there are many instances in which it is not > > at all appropriate to run DHCP (as currently specified), and that > > these instances are more common percentagewise, perhaps even > > predominant, in mobile ad-hoc networks. Which in no way implies > > that one should not consider DHCP when appropriate! > > > > Maybe instead of arguing over link types, it would be better to > > have a task force making a report about when DHCP is appropriate, > > and let the working group get on with other useful work. > > > > Regards, > > Charlie P. > > > > > I guess the problem statement draft is supposed to identify if/when DHCP > is appropriate or not. Section 5.1 of the document describes DHCP > limitations in MANETs, so by contraposition, it also talks about cases > when DHCP is appropriate in MANETs ;) Section 3 does a good separation between autonomous and subordinate MANET. In the autonomous MANET, no DHCP server would be available and thus node needs to rely on some other approach to configure addresses/prefixes. On the other hand in the subordinate MANET, availability of DHCP server can be assumed and thus a MANET node could contact it (directly or via relay agent) for configuration of addresses/prefixes. - Shubhranshu > > Maybe modifications to Section 5 would be a a good starting point to > address the subject? > > Emmanuel _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 20:37:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299613A6A57; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:37:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 1Mz-f64RAfm5; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5509B28C1FD; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:37:31 -0700 (PDT) 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 30B5928C1BA for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:37:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 wH89K6VwFDU5 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com (ag-out-0708.google.com [72.14.246.246]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C483A6A89 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 23so1335688agd.12 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:35:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=6CZdDVyszoGptxwsWoaoVenvx2Xnbq6a3kyfjzf/uzQ=; b=Cd4GOpplUkWF3+bXfVpFYOS+Ly1o9eQ5n1HDoMSRBV2z2XGqR456qIDMfyhEJQTO1330irGKd/Vv9lwoShxFz3s5feefkrtE5CsAnJahkHAe6POgeXYNp2Y+ksYk8gTrhOH6H5ER7QZHewBoulp3nN8j6qsbj4B0yyex6o4r8Po= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=TlPaKalN8m1PgTanYTDmDC49QoT5cp0+pd6lvlW1E3d7+zXMx0/OuLaCvxjxA2n0dYi6mI6Vgmj5JNz71P8mOyu+1Zn73ncmQ0yOSnMcMTCWUTUadfViaB2gIp49DCN6pzkzHUs+2w6iDFQAwYucy3TYlHnw7qOCzmXfAGKNEjQ= Received: by 10.100.41.11 with SMTP id o11mr4308321ano.7.1205984105422; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.229.8 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:05:05 +0530 From: Shubhranshu To: "Alexandru Petrescu" In-Reply-To: <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Alex, Please see inline comments On 3/19/08, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Shubhranshu wrote: > > Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > >> Ian Chakeres wrote: > >>> I'd like to chime in on this conversation by saying that "MANET > >>> link" is not a good term. MANET's (and the MANET WG protocols) > >>> run over lots of kinds of different physical and logical links. > >>> It just so happens that they may also often run over links with > >>> asymmetric reachability. > >> Maybe then trying to describe link-types in the AUTOCONF > >> Architecture is actually listing those kinds of different physical > >> and logical links on which MANET have been run? > >> > >> I have not run MANET. But I ran other IPv6 protocols, and AUTOCONF > >> is not limited to MANET, and the list of link-types I used are the > >> following: > >> > >> Ethernet Bluetooth PPP RS232C USB > > > > I agree that defining term "MANET link" is not appropriate but I do > > not see any point in listing all the links on which MANET has been > > run. > > How would one otherwise start describing link types? I assumed in my previous mail that by link you meant different L2 technologies since you listed bluetooth, USB, Ethernet, etc. One could do that by describing its properties, behavior as seen by the IP. > > > MANET has not been run on any particular L2 technology does not imply > > that MANET cannot run on that technology. > > > > I agree that having "IP Link Model" for MANET explained clearly would > > help here. The challenge is to express precisely, with appropriate > > terminologies what the MANET community has been assuming while > > designing and running MANET protocols. The current MANET Architecture > > document have text on this but since these questions keep coming, I > > am inclined to think that including more specific text would help. > > Well, the current draft does not describe 'link type', neither 'IP Link > Model', can't find. What do you mean by current MANET Architecture > document having text on this? Which part, thank you. I meant section 5. - Shubhranshu > > If one understands link types the way people having deployed ND and DHCP > understood link types then one wouldn't see a problem in running ND and > DHCP on the link types on which MANET runs. > > Alex > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 03:40:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB1028C31D; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:40:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.692 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.692 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.255, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 v+flpsRAT4mQ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9241B28C307; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:40:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 0E64428C2FD for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:40:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 wsMDU1q2nJ+r for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com (mail128.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DA9328C1CF for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:40:33 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1206009495!17750815!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.103] Received: (qmail 12668 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2008 10:38:15 -0000 Received: from motgate3.mot.com (HELO motgate3.mot.com) (144.189.100.103) by server-9.tower-128.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2008 10:38:15 -0000 Received: from az33exr03.mot.com (az33exr03.mot.com [10.64.251.233]) by motgate3.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id m2KAcEQl010134; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:38:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from az10vts04.mot.com (az10vts04.mot.com [10.64.251.245]) by az33exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id m2KAcEUW001935; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:38:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by az33exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id m2KAcBWD001922; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:38:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <47E23E93.6060505@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:38:11 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shubhranshu References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080319-0, 19/03/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Shubhranshu wrote: > Alex, > > Please see inline comments > > On 3/19/08, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> Shubhranshu wrote: >>> Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >>>> Ian Chakeres wrote: >>>>> I'd like to chime in on this conversation by saying that "MANET >>>>> link" is not a good term. MANET's (and the MANET WG protocols) >>>>> run over lots of kinds of different physical and logical links. >>>>> It just so happens that they may also often run over links with >>>>> asymmetric reachability. >>>> Maybe then trying to describe link-types in the AUTOCONF >>>> Architecture is actually listing those kinds of different physical >>>> and logical links on which MANET have been run? >>>> >>>> I have not run MANET. But I ran other IPv6 protocols, and AUTOCONF >>>> is not limited to MANET, and the list of link-types I used are the >>>> following: >>>> >>>> Ethernet Bluetooth PPP RS232C USB >>> I agree that defining term "MANET link" is not appropriate but I do >>> not see any point in listing all the links on which MANET has been >>> run. >> How would one otherwise start describing link types? > > I assumed in my previous mail that by link you meant different L2 > technologies since you listed bluetooth, USB, Ethernet, etc. One could > do that by describing its properties, behavior as seen by the IP. YEs, that is what I mean by 'link': a certain L2 technology. I agree one would describe its properties and behavior as seen by IP. >>> MANET has not been run on any particular L2 technology does not imply >>> that MANET cannot run on that technology. >>> >>> I agree that having "IP Link Model" for MANET explained clearly would >>> help here. The challenge is to express precisely, with appropriate >>> terminologies what the MANET community has been assuming while >>> designing and running MANET protocols. The current MANET Architecture >>> document have text on this but since these questions keep coming, I >>> am inclined to think that including more specific text would help. >> Well, the current draft does not describe 'link type', neither 'IP Link >> Model', can't find. What do you mean by current MANET Architecture >> document having text on this? Which part, thank you. > > I meant section 5. But section 5 "Addressing & the MANET Prefix Model" does not describe link types. Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 15:31:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709D73A67F1; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:31:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ihwf6x5xup3V; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82803A67FD; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:31:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 DC92F3A67F1 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:31:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 KMJntuci19+6 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71DD3A67DB for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:31:19 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=W2H7QzpadtTh7K7uG2CAuxorwCvE0itz7S1QGLLsfs+DsnZsQNV9O00hhJnuFSVT; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To: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 [67.35.150.171] (helo=[192.168.2.7]) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JcTFs-00086t-K2; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:29:00 -0400 Message-ID: <47E2E52C.6010500@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:29:00 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Perkins Consulting User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shubhranshu References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> <47E11A0E.4080701@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f5218053bab70b174d468cd14e3f86b3f27350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 67.35.150.171 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, Emmanuel Baccelli Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello Shubhranshu, Shubhranshu wrote: > ... in the subordinate MANET, > availability of DHCP server can be assumed and thus a MANET node could > contact it (directly or via relay agent) for configuration of > addresses/prefixes. > Do you really think so? Is every network attached to the Internet managed by DHCP? Shouldn't we allow for networks that follow the stateless autoconfiguration model of IPv6? Perhaps we should instead say that, in many circumstances, DHCP is appropriate for use with subordinate networks. Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 19:34:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B523A6B81; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:34:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cLylkWiqpJQf; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13AE3A6B2A; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:34:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 C27193A68FD for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:34:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 vtqSddfmS-ZR for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7422B3A6B2A for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so377583and.122 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:31:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=4GSwFqdCqmAbefG3y//49cB5q8dKot9gmIxQOxKpEG0=; b=MQg6N4jD3/mVwb9JoM3Nyox6gvsOLuiYXtt3fjipXVhm12vTNdFoNuFOaCucAFbLvh7mgugtRpu0I6S3U6/fmKwQpwfFn8G4M1oWVvxScgolsvEhJNn6UEixVSsH1dGUJngDtv0Q73WWH31CiVP+qC5d7cUyxU9ZmSbj6OaOVoA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=HRf/Dx4vBmfatyTTwMIctOKS2+GoEARXPVNA5aX+qLaefk5IiYd9LbVPIuiPDp7NS9OsGwUfdVr7saV7OOXqYDxfwkLPBmdbJNt5xqRdXNTmQH6CtjaQiWyfatzykC8oD/bp1wadbzbkzLNBkMV36qtiAJWOrLXjcQKAkb8brwk= Received: by 10.100.251.18 with SMTP id y18mr6924850anh.88.1206066668117; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.229.8 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:01:08 +0530 From: Shubhranshu To: charliep@computer.org In-Reply-To: <47E2E52C.6010500@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> <47E11A0E.4080701@inria.fr> <47E2E52C.6010500@earthlink.net> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, Emmanuel Baccelli Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello Charlie, On 3/21/08, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > Hello Shubhranshu, > > Shubhranshu wrote: > > ... in the subordinate MANET, > > availability of DHCP server can be assumed and thus a MANET node could > > contact it (directly or via relay agent) for configuration of > > addresses/prefixes. > > > > Do you really think so? Is every network attached to the > Internet managed by DHCP? Shouldn't we allow for > networks that follow the stateless autoconfiguration > model of IPv6? > > Perhaps we should instead say that, in many > circumstances, DHCP is appropriate for use > with subordinate networks. In my previous mail, I didn't mean always (else I'd have used "should"). So we are on the same page. And thats why we have IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration as well. Regards, Shubhranshu > > Regards, > Charlie P. > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 24 08:56:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF62928C3DC; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:56:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.158 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.721, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 E9yWCHkHW30w; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E65E28C3FE; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:56:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 AAD6B28C103 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:25:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 hm2kboqXVZgV for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35E728C459 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [65.33.46.39] (helo=[192.168.1.6]) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JbzBw-0005ar-9f; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:22:56 -0400 Message-ID: <47E121C3.7000709@computer.org> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:22:59 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: IETF User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Teco Boot References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> <001601c889c8$8c5f9d00$a51ed700$@nl> In-Reply-To: <001601c889c8$8c5f9d00$a51ed700$@nl> X-ELNK-Trace: 5a185a306015b1a28a306fc704168558239a348a220c2609ce18b77a69e8de238b4fd61929647858548b785378294e88350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 65.33.46.39 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:56:12 -0700 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello Teco, Teco Boot wrote: > Can we run IPv4 over Ethernet without ARP? Of course it would be possible. But, resolving IP addresses on a nice broadcast medium like Ethernet is so conveniently done by ARP, it would seem silly to do it some other way. Plus, for most hosts on an IPv4 Ethernet there is typically not any question about the next hop. > Can we run IPv6 over Ethernet without ND? I'd answer pretty much the same way for this. > Should Autoconf work on a protocol for link layer address discovery for > MANET links (link between MANET interfaces)? The fact that typical MANET media don't offer the nice broadcast physics of Ethernet motivates me to answer this in the negative. > Or snoop L2 header info from for example received NHDP packets? Well, that seems fine to me, but I'm sure neither one of us would suggest that as a replacement for Ethernet broadcast. > I am with you when you say: let's try to reduce overhead. Thanks! I think the meeting of the [roll] working group made the importance of this even more clear. Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 24 08:56:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E34A28C3E6; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:56:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 XBD-4ovolYVt; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496BD28C428; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:56:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 AD57128C32C for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 05:46:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 OqnG0hgfotCf for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 05:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D111F3A689F for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 05:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [65.33.46.39] (helo=[192.168.1.2]) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Jdm19-0002VM-I5; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:43:11 -0400 Message-ID: <47E7A1DE.7060001@computer.org> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 05:43:10 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: IETF User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shubhranshu References: <001501c885e5$da561a20$8f024e60$@nl> <374005f30803170457u1d8f43cenfc3c1fef744602f5@mail.gmail.com> <47DFDF53.3030901@gmail.com> <47E0E82B.2040900@gmail.com> <47E0F852.5090205@earthlink.net> <47E11A0E.4080701@inria.fr> <47E2E52C.6010500@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: X-ELNK-Trace: 5a185a306015b1a28a306fc704168558239a348a220c260929168e8489e3c1433e99747046adf084350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 65.33.46.39 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:56:12 -0700 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello Shubhranshu, Yes, I think we are in agreement on this. But this model of operation was not very clear from the way the discussion transpired at the recent IETF meeting. As long as the DHCP-style of stateful autoconfiguration is enabled and yet not in any way mandated, I think most people would be happy. Regards, Charlie P. Shubhranshu wrote: > Hello Charlie, > > On 3/21/08, Charles E. Perkins wrote: >> Hello Shubhranshu, >> >> Shubhranshu wrote: >>> ... in the subordinate MANET, >>> availability of DHCP server can be assumed and thus a MANET node could >>> contact it (directly or via relay agent) for configuration of >>> addresses/prefixes. >>> >> Do you really think so? Is every network attached to the >> Internet managed by DHCP? Shouldn't we allow for >> networks that follow the stateless autoconfiguration >> model of IPv6? >> >> Perhaps we should instead say that, in many >> circumstances, DHCP is appropriate for use >> with subordinate networks. > > > In my previous mail, I didn't mean always (else I'd have used > "should"). So we are on the same page. And thats why we have IPv6 > stateless autoconfiguration as well. > > Regards, > Shubhranshu > > >> Regards, >> Charlie P. >> > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf