Subject: [Autoconf] Two comments on draft-ietf-autoconf-statement-00.txt

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:43:18 +0200

Hi authors, I have two quick comments on this problem statement.

> For instance, in Fig. 1, even if MR1 would be able to delegate 
> prefixes to MR3 with DHCP [4], it cannot be assumed that MR1 and MR3
>  will not move and become unable to communicate directly.

It should also be said that if MNR1 and MNR2 move but keep their
addresses stable, and if DYMO/OLSR/NHDP update the routes between their
new positions, then DHCP Prefix Delegation can still be used as defined.

> The distributed nature of MANETs brings the need for address 
> generation algorithms that are not always based on traditional 
> "client-server" schemes and hierarchies to provide MANET routers with
>  addresses and prefixes.

I think it should also say that Internet has also a very distributed
nature yet client-server schemes are sometimes needed.

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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf