From ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com Wed Mar 3 13:36:56 2010 Return-Path: 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 38A743A89CB for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:36:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 ZgQJyn4beicT for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:36:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8A73A8993 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:36:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so2032200fxm.29 for ; Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:36:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references:to:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer; bh=Vt/ecj8mEmd5uAP8dBpsIMYUQcFfx7SKbMjSWwG7l9o=; b=ZwxjJ+i4Iqbtp8CO8iq4NFb1Wsw0PU8bH2i3I7gZdLT9Yexju6rP0gYfxq7k801dJI CJfhZoBRateByg4y+bCcq8qn4Ku3K3f/pEDpLW7EWyqGhY1b4pw19fWEqizYgcW+mBAp PNhrlpIneC96cTb+Z6BpDSt+mwoER55PEtClc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; b=FWQdl7v63GqLiitBe0LPzTKacj2i5Y9pYM8UpoOSFeiOMHkFmybolFgownWE8KQXjo FvDXYZQQO7XFbiiEH2F7SrrAnpRt3Kuz2nm9ZTGPqio60+xrn0NCd1uk6DW4iiEOEm9O EsQMmw3xbiFh2SqDoaBV+yX4Xr1JrXResUEI0= Received: by 10.87.72.8 with SMTP id z8mr2668778fgk.37.1267652211487; Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:36:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from macbookpro-ryuji.paloalto.toyota-itc.com ([206.132.173.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d6sm13057038fga.17.2010.03.03.13.36.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:36:50 -0800 (PST) From: Ryuji Wakikawa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:36:46 -0800 References: <20100303153619.1C185530773@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> To: autoconf@ietf.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Subject: [Autoconf] Fwd: request for help in developing a tool that may be helpful to WG chairs 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:36:56 -0000 FYI. Please try this survey. thanks, ryuji Begin forwarded message: > From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) > Date: 2010/03/03 07:36:19GMT-08:00 > To: wgchairs@ietf.org > Subject: request for help in developing a tool that may be helpful to = WG chairs >=20 > IETF working group chairs; >=20 > We are developing an open-source tool for monitoring the status and > progress of conflicts in on-line working groups (WG). The tool works = by > analyzing the WG mailing list. When developed, this tool should be > helpful to WG chairs trying to understand the status of WG discussions > (how close to consensus is the WG, what is the distribution of > participation, etc). >=20 > As part of the development process we have been using a prototype tool > to analyze IETF WG mailing list archives to determine the amount of > conflict and how effective this conflict is being (has been) resolved. > As the first step, we need to understand the relationship between the > conflicts in a working group and the structure of the communication > network in that group. While having conflicts is not necessarily a bad > thing for a working group effort, some conflicts can escalate into > disasters. We are interested in finding the communication patterns > related to the evolution of group conflicts. Results from this study > will provide the base for the development of the tool that helps = working > group chairs to decide when to intervene with an internal conflict > before it becomes irreversibly negative as well as being a tool that = may > help determine where there is consensus on a particular topic. >=20 > We would like your help in understanding the level of conflicts within > your working groups and how the conflicts affect productivity and = group > members=92 perception on the working group. It will be greatly = appreciated > if you could ask your WG members to anonymously fill a short survey at=20= >=20 > = https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=3Den&formkey=3DdExTbEU5QmRncnh= FbjhQUVR4bzBGMEE6MA >=20 > Thank you! >=20 > Best Regards,=20 >=20 > Bin Zhu, Mark Gaynor, Scott Bradner, and Jialun Qin >=20 From thomas@thomasclausen.org Tue Mar 9 10:56:35 2010 Return-Path: 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 C5F193A68B2 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:56:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 rKP+HOHTGp2a for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:56:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF3AE3A6A0E for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:56:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2CED430064; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:56:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.0.2.6] (sphinx.lix.polytechnique.fr [129.104.11.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F6C243006E; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:56:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: Thomas Heide Clausen To: autoconf@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:56:37 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Subject: [Autoconf] Next [autoconf] meeting in Anaheim 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:56:35 -0000 Dear friends, As you know, the next [autoconf] WG meeting is scheduled as follows: > FRIDAY, March 26, 2010 > > 0900-1130 Morning Session I > Huntington INT autoconf Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG Our only charter item is currently undergoing IESG review, the progress of which you can follow here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model/ This means that we can -- should -- profit from this coming meeting to discuss how we will approach the solution space, with a coming rechartering of the wg in mind. To that end, the chairs would like to solicit agenda-items from the wg for the Anaheim meeting, including but not limited to, presentations concerning: o Solution-space descriptions, analysis, etc. o Protocols for autoconfiguration in MANETs, including o Applicability of / intersection with existing IETF protocols (SLAAC, DHCP, ...) o Surveys of protocols, interesting/appropriate for this space Over the years, a body of work has been developed/deployed - some of which has discussed in this WG, much of which documented in (possibly expired) individual I-Ds, academic papers, whitepapers and elsewhere. Now would be the time to bring this forward for the WG to study, with the hope of progressing on developing actual protocols solving the autoconfiguration problem(s) in MANETs. Please do send proposed agenda-items / request for presentation slots to the chairs asap, preferably with pointers to what documentation exists (even if expired, or if it didn't make it in under the deadline). We will, then, try to accommodate (time permitting) these on an agenda - which we will produce as soon as possible. The chairs would like to profit from the fact that the [autoconf] WG session is on Friday by trying to get together with presenters (and other interested) over the week, hoping to make this meeting productive. We will share our thoughts on directions for WG rechartering in a separate email. Sincerely, Ryuji & Thomas From jari.arkko@piuha.net Mon Mar 22 14:46:14 2010 Return-Path: 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 8962F28C0DE for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.73 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.73 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.739, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 ltYSUliSqx8h for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0053A6923 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121342CF39; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:46:30 +0200 (EET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZH45ekMuU-S9; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:46:29 +0200 (EET) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBBB2CC9A; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:46:23 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:46:20 -0700 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu References: <1266925311.4036.71.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4B882EB5.4070605@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B882EB5.4070605@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Next steps? 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:46:14 -0000 Alex, > In the solution space I am interested in the use of link-local addresses > and of multicast link-scoped addresses. > > I hope these are not forbidden by the IPv6 addressing architecture > document, which seems to be sent to the IESG now. Actually, I *do* want to see the working group's solutions build on top of the address model that we have just completed. And it does discourage the use of link-local addresses. Lets not return to that discussion, I would be more interested in discussing what gaps we have the technology and what possible solutions we might need to do. Jari From ulrich@herberg.name Mon Mar 22 14:59:48 2010 Return-Path: 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 295153A69B2 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:59:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.295 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.449, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 F5NAzg2bSzx0 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:59:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B6A28C130 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so1985467fxm.29 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:59:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.49.83 with SMTP id u19mr4441946bkf.157.1269295198115; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:59:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> References: <1266925311.4036.71.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4B882EB5.4070605@gmail.com> <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:59:57 -0700 Message-ID: <25c114b91003221459k63900ba7rf79e3ae26e81dc0a@mail.gmail.com> From: Ulrich Herberg To: Jari Arkko Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325559876661a0f04826ad16b Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Next steps? 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:59:48 -0000 --000325559876661a0f04826ad16b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree with Jari on this point. To the chairs: is there already an agenda for the meeting? Will there be solutions presented? Ulrich On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Alex, > > > In the solution space I am interested in the use of link-local addresses >> and of multicast link-scoped addresses. >> >> I hope these are not forbidden by the IPv6 addressing architecture >> document, which seems to be sent to the IESG now. >> > > Actually, I *do* want to see the working group's solutions build on top of > the address model that we have just completed. And it does discourage the > use of link-local addresses. Lets not return to that discussion, I would be > more interested in discussing what gaps we have the technology and what > possible solutions we might need to do. > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > --000325559876661a0f04826ad16b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree with Jari on this point.

To the chairs: is there already an= agenda for the meeting? Will there be solutions presented?

Ulrich<= br>
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jari Ark= ko <jari.arkko= @piuha.net> wrote:
Alex,


In the solution space I am interested in the use of link-local addresses and of multicast link-scoped addresses.

I hope these are not forbidden by the IPv6 addressing architecture
document, which seems to be sent to the IESG now.

Actually, I *do* want to see the working group's solutions build on top= of the address model that we have just completed. And it does discourage t= he use of link-local addresses. Lets not return to that discussion, I would= be more interested in discussing what gaps we have the technology and what= possible solutions we might need to do.

Jari

_______________________________________________

--000325559876661a0f04826ad16b-- From ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com Mon Mar 22 15:02:57 2010 Return-Path: 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 ED8D428C130 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:02:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 RouQuzFtw+uO for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com (mail-ew0-f216.google.com [209.85.219.216]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045003A67E1 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:02:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so68199ewy.28 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:03:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=g6IwWi6LqNJMoDc9isZ4Fs1hsTvzJv6H+cIk6i0Bkyc=; b=LDaRQ5Q+pO0LFIPJoxCR9b9JCC1iRKtLwVF8CTSH8tPUstUPbkR4Q+Ud/wzk8+UZUY tQEKXDVK00WXStHYu0svFfGsMQM/mcfhK5sKjUt/ZWHRX9AW9HLFZWGmAo72xZhckbzL RurOaeBEmsvZ7pxTYrE+uDFOKQmj7+Z4zXlOs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=r8t5QqHnaR39DiR7AfSLnymXsc/6GRyQCTwI/tHNuYsnNvid1o4rQwUodSdjshqq0H eTPZ69WE5QyqKHq7lrAFrhMh/fqpoSiAN+5XDHYQz6kkbyErxUophMyHKT0MjhDv4OEA oHCi/M+wW5pJnnaLdlj4y2J74vNTR6w8a1hkI= Received: by 10.102.12.21 with SMTP id 21mr6590133mul.3.1269295390007; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-a-40-145.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-wireless-open-a-40-145.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.40.145]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s11sm629453mue.41.2010.03.22.15.03.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ryuji Wakikawa In-Reply-To: <25c114b91003221459k63900ba7rf79e3ae26e81dc0a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:03:02 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1266925311.4036.71.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4B882EB5.4070605@gmail.com> <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> <25c114b91003221459k63900ba7rf79e3ae26e81dc0a@mail.gmail.com> To: Ulrich Herberg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Next steps? 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:02:58 -0000 Hi Ulrich, #although I am sitting next to you, let me answer here. On 2010/03/22, at 14:59, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > I agree with Jari on this point.=20 >=20 > To the chairs: is there already an agenda for the meeting? Will there = be solutions presented?=20 Yes, we got 5 presentation requests and allocate slots for all the = requests. =20 We also plan to spend more time on "our next step" at this meeting. We will publish agenda shortly (sorry for delay). thanks, ryuji >=20 > Ulrich >=20 > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jari Arkko = wrote: > Alex, >=20 >=20 > In the solution space I am interested in the use of link-local = addresses > and of multicast link-scoped addresses. >=20 > I hope these are not forbidden by the IPv6 addressing architecture > document, which seems to be sent to the IESG now. >=20 > Actually, I *do* want to see the working group's solutions build on = top of the address model that we have just completed. And it does = discourage the use of link-local addresses. Lets not return to that = discussion, I would be more interested in discussing what gaps we have = the technology and what possible solutions we might need to do. >=20 > Jari >=20 > _______________________________________________ >=20 > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl Mon Mar 22 15:13:22 2010 Return-Path: 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 840C93A68E5 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:13:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.485 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] 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 SGZqNjDX0-ba for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailoutb.tno.nl (mailoutb.tno.nl [134.221.1.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD903A67E1 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:13:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,290,1267398000"; d="scan'208";a="7898277" Received: from ms-dt01thalia.tno.nl (HELO ms-dt01thalia.tsn.tno.nl) ([134.221.225.157]) by mailhost1b.tno.nl with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2010 23:13:38 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:13:38 +0100 Message-ID: <7877C5C0B5CC894AB26113CF06CF886301238DE8@ms-dt01thalia.tsn.tno.nl> In-Reply-To: <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Next steps? Thread-Index: AcrKCSZuvvpYBY1aTz6paY8XpdxRKgAA4GeA References: <1266925311.4036.71.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es><4B882EB5.4070605@gmail.com> <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> From: "Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Next steps? 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:13:22 -0000 Jari, all,=20 >=20 > > In the solution space I am interested in the use of link-local=20 > > addresses and of multicast link-scoped addresses. > > > > I hope these are not forbidden by the IPv6 addressing architecture=20 > > document, which seems to be sent to the IESG now. >=20 > Actually, I *do* want to see the working group's solutions=20 > build on top of the address model that we have just=20 > completed. And it does discourage the use of link-local=20 > addresses. Lets not return to that discussion, I would be=20 > more interested in discussing what gaps we have the=20 > technology and what possible solutions we might need to do. >=20 Then, to put it bluntly, we have been had. Time and again it has been mentioned that the document presented *an* addressing architecture model, not *the* model. I would think that the scope of solutions would be subject of a re-chartering discussion. Ronald This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tn= o.nl/disclaimer/email.html From root@core3.amsl.com Mon Mar 22 15:15:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: autoconf@ietf.org Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id C0C823A69B2; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:15:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100322221501.C0C823A69B2@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: [Autoconf] I-D Action:draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-03.txt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:15:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration Working Group of the IETF. Title : IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks Author(s) : E. Baccelli, M. Townsley Filename : draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-03.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2010-03-22 This document describes a model for configuring IP addresses and subnet prefixes on the interfaces of routers which connect to links with undetermined connectivity properties. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-03-22151219.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com Mon Mar 22 15:55:39 2010 Return-Path: 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 CC7E328C1D8 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:55:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 RJXTpLXIu8yx for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA9928C1BE for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so2045830fxm.29 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:55:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version :x-mailer; bh=FHV093AkBF+rRsNkiJSWfddDoQUal1Bn91tUurcqkDM=; b=h7tqtV09klAGzokf/MpVs+fD5xvV56zrGVYhjmIz2X0pstJ1mL0Go7xBJJgP5Wr8e8 kYbguOGWRmcvLO1BB07xmM76IXBc18+gegaH4pKoL3RsJ0oACPgcNPSbNZJ8yr8NZKjq blZSAM7cpuWocrcx2UVDPb8WevppKL5Y8lhJI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=a6rGCi6Co4zktjxzgYsxS4KLtiPuXJ4i0HcsTdVrtX19ywPbS6D41EIzguKJWmolgL 34XzXjcrXyhTZ2mIFGV+TqcGB5lv+lmPeyZlB+1cfZcpxIU3KgLPeSJ5aeykv/gDNYIC k1bbW6vrfpyOqg5rtQ74J2eV5JTOgKQcXNQsQ= Received: by 10.223.5.69 with SMTP id 5mr4162762fau.8.1269298553287; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-28-234.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.28.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 16sm2246578fxm.0.2010.03.22.15.55.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:55:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Ryuji Wakikawa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:55:46 -0700 Message-Id: To: "autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Subject: [Autoconf] IETF 77 AUTOCONF 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:55:39 -0000 Hi all, Please find the AUTOCONF meeting agenda.=20 thanks, ryuji ----------------------------------------------------------- What: Autoconf WG Where: Huntington=20 When: 0900-1130 FRIDAY, March 26, 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Agenda o WG status and update(Chairs) 5min o Individual Submissions 75min - Solution-space analysis by Carlos/Hassnaa 15min https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bernardos-autoconf-solution-space-02 - Survey of existing protocols by Carlos/Hassnaa 15min https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey-04 - Border Router Discovery Protocol (BRDP) based Address = Autoconfiguration by Teco 15min http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boot-autoconf-brdp-02 - Introduction of RANGER, VET, and SEAL by Fred 15min http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5720.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5558.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5320.txt - Global6, Charlie P. 15min https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05 o Next Steps 60min o WrapUp 10min ----------------------------------------------------------- Mailing List Archive: = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html Jabber: autoconf@jabber.ietf.org -----------------------------------------------------------= From teco@inf-net.nl Mon Mar 22 16:02:48 2010 Return-Path: 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 B720F28C1BE for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 OchKiIha3ar2 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A749D3A67FD for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so2053585fxm.29 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.18.132 with SMTP id w4mr1867160faa.30.1269298982219; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-24-146.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-wireless-open-abg-24-146.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.24.146]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d13sm299247fka.32.2010.03.22.16.03.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:02:54 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1266925311.4036.71.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4B882EB5.4070605@gmail.com> <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> To: Jari Arkko X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Next steps? 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:02:48 -0000 Jari, The address model doesn't discourage the use of IPv6 link-local=20 addresses. It explains the limitations of it and encourage the=20 WG to primarily focus on configuring IP addresses that are=20 not IPv6 link-local. Small but essential difference. IPv4 link-local addresses are discouraged. My BRDP proposal runs on RA. I could change it to run on PacketBB or RFC4861 could be updated. Or I keep the usage of link-local. I'll pick the WG preference on this. And check what ROLL RPL is=20 doing. BRDP does configure non-link-locals. Regards, Teco. Op 22 mrt 2010, om 22:46 heeft Jari Arkko het volgende geschreven: > Alex, >=20 >> In the solution space I am interested in the use of link-local = addresses >> and of multicast link-scoped addresses. >>=20 >> I hope these are not forbidden by the IPv6 addressing architecture >> document, which seems to be sent to the IESG now. >=20 > Actually, I *do* want to see the working group's solutions build on = top of the address model that we have just completed. And it does = discourage the use of link-local addresses. Lets not return to that = discussion, I would be more interested in discussing what gaps we have = the technology and what possible solutions we might need to do. >=20 > Jari >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com Mon Mar 22 16:13:48 2010 Return-Path: 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 8612E28C21A for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:13:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 F-P5q7vK2WMt for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C45628C218 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so2064960fxm.29 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:14:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=+BXDYkoYeygTtjkRXPnRWhrBKYtt4yEkWKskVNzMBIM=; b=MNTt6HmOqY4aSFye6W7pvzeR4ysUazm+Xj2SaEmczxnrEwfWom+Rp+mXzHSTDdBJyW z+fjFLuoogZvSZ2e/GOJeDBLwLgpAyQDeZ0u/YGqWcNGOHx9Z32YoFVcHwRzqgMoGRQ3 1Ux4ymgVc51FYvtmEBqupNKbH2rZC4tVJlmcM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=ndsR/i61g7Uo68b1SQAugWteFiOq54G6LfzSWm83yr6U9+fzXge2RoiCTY370VPwD4 phPIgINiXyjCdDlYiN+xmPYVKwDtXu/FbxhFoIJZ8aHDn+fxaeYdC4GUS/DdyddAmy/C ll7FFloFmTCDoriUA7r6vedZN0KmLK1BHZ3r4= Received: by 10.223.65.77 with SMTP id h13mr718615fai.91.1269299642275; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-28-234.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-wireless-open-abg-28-234.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.28.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm6787294fkx.6.2010.03.22.16.14.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ryuji Wakikawa In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:13:54 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: "autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Subject: Re: [Autoconf] IETF 77 AUTOCONF 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:13:48 -0000 Hi all, One clarification. We are not going to pick any solution at this meetings. Thomas and I assign a slot to all the presentation requests at this = meeting. The presentations assigned for the individual documents are related to = AUTOCONF. =20 We need to fix the next step first. thanks ryuji On 2010/03/22, at 15:55, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > Please find the AUTOCONF meeting agenda.=20 >=20 > thanks, > ryuji >=20 > ----------------------------------------------------------- > What: Autoconf WG > Where: Huntington=20 > When: 0900-1130 FRIDAY, March 26, 2010 > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Agenda >=20 > o WG status and update(Chairs) 5min > o Individual Submissions 75min > - Solution-space analysis by Carlos/Hassnaa 15min > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bernardos-autoconf-solution-space-02 >=20 > - Survey of existing protocols by Carlos/Hassnaa 15min > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey-04 >=20 > - Border Router Discovery Protocol (BRDP) based Address = Autoconfiguration by Teco 15min > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boot-autoconf-brdp-02 >=20 > - Introduction of RANGER, VET, and SEAL by Fred 15min > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5720.txt > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5558.txt > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5320.txt >=20 > - Global6, Charlie P. 15min > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05 >=20 > o Next Steps 60min > o WrapUp 10min >=20 > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Mailing List Archive: = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html > Jabber: autoconf@jabber.ietf.org > ----------------------------------------------------------- From charles.perkins@earthlink.net Mon Mar 22 16:53:14 2010 Return-Path: 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 7B0CF28C26C for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:53:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.39 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 BAanRxeO8mZs for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:53:13 -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 A058828C185 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:53:13 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=CUeF6lGEu+Ik80cxWsNgO9JrzuL/ajDDlGigUqatWir8rP3pIm44jgaqsb2v/Tix; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [130.129.29.163] by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1NtrQV-0003n4-3J; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:52:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA802BC.7040207@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:52:28 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: autoconf@ietf.org References: <1266925311.4036.71.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4B882EB5.4070605@gmail.com> <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f526e48376cbce3d3735bc5e0b3b867e59a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 130.129.29.163 Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Next steps? 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:53:14 -0000 Hello folks, Teco's wording matches my understanding also. Anyway, I think when it comes to solutions, we'll be able to see whether or not a link-local solution is "competitive" with other solutions. Regards, Charlie P. On 3/22/2010 4:02 PM, Teco Boot wrote: > Jari, > > The address model doesn't discourage the use of IPv6 link-local > addresses. It explains the limitations of it and encourage the > WG to primarily focus on configuring IP addresses that are > not IPv6 link-local. Small but essential difference. > IPv4 link-local addresses are discouraged. > > My BRDP proposal runs on RA. I could change it to run on PacketBB > or RFC4861 could be updated. Or I keep the usage of link-local. > I'll pick the WG preference on this. And check what ROLL RPL is > doing. > BRDP does configure non-link-locals. > > Regards, Teco. > > > Op 22 mrt 2010, om 22:46 heeft Jari Arkko het volgende geschreven: > >> Alex, >> >>> In the solution space I am interested in the use of link-local addresses >>> and of multicast link-scoped addresses. >>> >>> I hope these are not forbidden by the IPv6 addressing architecture >>> document, which seems to be sent to the IESG now. >> >> Actually, I *do* want to see the working group's solutions build on top of the address model that we have just completed. And it does discourage the use of link-local addresses. Lets not return to that discussion, I would be more interested in discussing what gaps we have the technology and what possible solutions we might need to do. >> >> Jari >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Tue Mar 23 08:29:48 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: autoconf@ietf.org Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 820B63A6924; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:29:48 -0700 (PDT) X-idtracker: yes From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Message-Id: <20100323152948.820B63A6924@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Cc: autoconf mailing list , autoconf chair , Internet Architecture Board , RFC Editor Subject: [Autoconf] Document Action: 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks' to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:29:48 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks ' as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Ralph Droms. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-03.txt Technical Summary This document describes a model for configuring IP addresses and subnet prefixes on the interfaces of routers which connect to links with undetermined connectivity properties. While the considerations in this document are general, they are specifically written with the most stringent requirements of MANETs in mind; essentially, a router configured according to the principles set forth in this document will be able to support operation of a MANET routing protocol. Working Group Summary Variations of this document have been in the working group process for four years. Earlier incarnations attempted to specify much more than this document does. In 2009, the working group was rechartered to focus on documenting *a* workable address configuration model, as opposed to attempting to describe all possible theoretical models. The model described in this document is the one most widely used by networks that employ ad hoc routing techniques. The recommendation in the document to not use Link Local addresses for operation over interfaces towards links with undetermined connectivity properties was not unanimous, and on this point, consensus was rough. Document Quality While the document does not specify a protocol, there are about a decade of experience with running MANETs in which routers have their interfaces configured according to the recommendations in this document. Personnel Ryuji Wakikawa is the Document Shepherd, and Jari Arkko is the responsible Area Director. From ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com Tue Mar 23 08:41:03 2010 Return-Path: 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 D66C33A6C42 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:41:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.02 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 Zi+LLrXFgECd for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:41:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049CE3A6C29 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:41:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pwi10 with SMTP id 10so3416338pwi.31 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:41:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to:x-mailer; bh=Tea6vgDp8madrHXGrvbHG6x/3gHC3y1S9fU0wny9Z2I=; b=M2d+4Bi14tECOzAqvvlOMWUr6dw1ibMgqAzU0hG7a6XU18jawgclOJbdkTwcYonj1e aPa2xMelnF7XxpG/zsz/fU3UC/agKD4Wu//6Lj6tyb6ojcKIJ3103B/XpMCfGHiDnIMT 6Q5HydU2kI40YdjMF0IuT0wu2OQRu33tKJRK8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=EB5l3S+0VPp6P20uQSettpYmrS96v5X55pjjZYoKO85Hpf7paT4TrqcQXtUhKbK75m g/QapTbMi8FbKP3PPWS5jx/if0hGPLK8sjabOxuaT8vLHVHToy3sAXBbkY2tWqTnfPhr oB7LnJZqLhp6fSi91XoPnvizzvlvJyqLWlMUc= Received: by 10.142.250.18 with SMTP id x18mr2852205wfh.169.1269358878619; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.27.168.81] (207.88.181.2.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.181.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a1sm2413301ibs.0.2010.03.23.08.41.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) From: Ryuji Wakikawa Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:41:10 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <66CF81A2-FA42-43F3-B2E8-E463030DB81F@gmail.com> References: <20100323152948.820B63A6924@core3.amsl.com> To: "autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: Emmanuel Baccelli Subject: [Autoconf] Fwd: Document Action: 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks' to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:41:04 -0000 Hi all, Thanks for all your contribution. We finally get this stage! Specially thanks to Emmanuel and Mark!! see you on Friday! regards, ryuji Begin forwarded message: > From: The IESG > Date: 2010/03/23 08:29:48GMT-07:00 > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: Internet Architecture Board , RFC Editor = , autoconf mailing list , = autoconf chair > Subject: Document Action: 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks' to = Informational RFC >=20 > The IESG has approved the following document: >=20 > - 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks ' > as an Informational = RFC >=20 >=20 > This document is the product of the Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration = Working Group.=20 >=20 > The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Ralph Droms. >=20 > A URL of this Internet-Draft is: > = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-0= 3.txt >=20 > Technical Summary >=20 > This document describes a model for configuring IP addresses and > subnet prefixes on the interfaces of routers which connect to links > with undetermined connectivity properties. While the considerations > in this document are general, they are specifically written with the > most stringent requirements of MANETs in mind; essentially, a router > configured according to the principles set forth in this document > will be able to support operation of a MANET routing protocol. >=20 > Working Group Summary >=20 > Variations of this document have been in the working group process > for four years. Earlier incarnations attempted to specify much more > than this document does. In 2009, the working group was rechartered > to focus on documenting *a* workable address configuration model, > as opposed to attempting to describe all possible theoretical = models. > The model described in this document is the one most widely used > by networks that employ ad hoc routing techniques. >=20 > The recommendation in the document to not use > Link Local addresses for operation over interfaces towards links = with > undetermined connectivity properties was not unanimous, and on this > point, consensus was rough. >=20 > Document Quality >=20 > While the document does not specify a protocol, there are about a > decade of experience with running MANETs in which routers have > their interfaces configured according to the recommendations in this > document. >=20 > Personnel >=20 > Ryuji Wakikawa is the Document Shepherd, and Jari Arkko is > the responsible Area Director. >=20 From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Tue Mar 23 14:15:09 2010 Return-Path: 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 443C33A6BD1 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:15:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.481 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] 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 B29P0Fe8DUey for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr (smtp5-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046743A6B0C for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69ABD480F3; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:15:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bur91-3-82-239-213-32.fbx.proxad.net [82.239.213.32]) by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A950FD4803C; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:15:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4BA92F5C.80201@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:15:08 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jari Arkko References: <1266925311.4036.71.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4B882EB5.4070605@gmail.com> <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: <4BA7E52C.9050403@piuha.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100323-1, 23/03/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Next steps? 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:15:09 -0000 Le 22/03/2010 22:46, Jari Arkko a écrit : > Alex, > >> In the solution space I am interested in the use of link-local >> addresses and of multicast link-scoped addresses. >> >> I hope these are not forbidden by the IPv6 addressing architecture >> document, which seems to be sent to the IESG now. > > Actually, I *do* want to see the working group's solutions build on > top of the address model that we have just completed. And it does > discourage the use of link-local addresses. Lets not return to that > discussion, I would be more interested in discussing what gaps we > have the technology and what possible solutions we might need to do. WEll yes let's discuss gaps in technology but for which deployment? Anything simply labelled "MANET" is way too vague to understand for me. -personal area networks for commercial PDAs and phones? -vehicular settings? -mobile Client to Access Point configuration? (bonjour) -WiFi AP fixed on street poles? -any other? I am throwing this list just like that. Maybe identifying deployments is not important at all. I really don't know what should we discuss about technology gaps. Alex > > Jari > > From erik.nordmark@sun.com Wed Mar 24 08:54:25 2010 Return-Path: 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 EE5AF3A6B93; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:54:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.616 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 LKZZUYrKlmaf; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-1.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.43.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7983A6BF2; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.17.59]) by sca-ea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o2OFlkDi000033; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:47:46 GMT Received: from [10.7.251.248] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.251.248]) by jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o2OFljsq827060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:47:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:47:43 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100302 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, The IESG , IETF-Announce Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:54:26 -0000 On 02/19/10 05:42 AM, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration > WG (autoconf) to consider the following document: > > - 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks ' > as an Informational RFC I read this draft a few weeks back during the last call. But I didn't send the comments because I wasn't up to speed with the WG discussion, and I figured I could do that while talking to folks in Anaheim. But then the draft was approved. I have two significant issues with the document. First of all it seems to conflate the notion of a router ID with the IP addresses configured on the interfaces on a router. Second of all it seems to discourage the use of IPv6 link-locals as the IP addresses to configure on interfaces on routers. But this seems to be counter to the current set of existing well-known Internet routing protocols. For instance, RIPng doesn't even use a notion of router IDs, and is required to communicate using IPv6 link-local addresses. OSPv3 running on IPv6 also is required to use IPv6 link-local addresses for the exchanges AFAIK, but the router ID is a 32 bit number. ISIS has a router ID that is a NSAP address (derived from an IEEE MAC address), and doesn't require IP addresses to be configured on the interfaces in order to run the protocol between the routers. Hence router IDs doesn't need to be an IP address, and there is no need to stay away from IPv6 link-local addresses for the above protocols. Yet this draft has come to the conclusion that things need to be different for links with undetermined connectivity, which makes no sense. Regards, Erik From ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com Wed Mar 24 12:57:10 2010 Return-Path: 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 8E1193A6B7C; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:57:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 V9cU-MimiRfl; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5C23A6C18; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so361243fxm.29 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:57:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=kusOHWj9Ao+7irTR9obFc+sErfyg8Oz74wEfFDLw0mY=; b=ZZsfb3MaunPSBtFo8dI0jN7NcS0nwpe3WaW/3cwTP48XoUDYm3Fi0U2PDWrDSkS7CQ sxsm7uH5K84qWAZ3iQ93AAF1Gr0lkPCGuGm4XhTI7c6uILGAuWFbTrZSGsZWQYU5CqBC ww3F+a3LPRMzCADAAGsCFSU3jFoRxYuPrAdP8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=LujWG71xe/M5f/Nc1AME3Dx96eZ0iQwg1eVm2G5XmVCHt2c9KdbtJVJzzwFbM78ccE a4/XQ9dQHJxyCrnEjVMIYoNV4rSAcjymBTbVkWikTrDbq388VrECQKcTDQT0jNKBHHsx uLA8JCSE542SffGrK/A5L5prvPn2BoEAe4VJY= Received: by 10.223.64.84 with SMTP id d20mr3264061fai.76.1269460645589; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-28-234.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.28.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm380640fxm.3.2010.03.24.12.57.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ryuji Wakikawa In-Reply-To: <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:57:20 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7849F9F2-EBEA-401B-AF06-C9A345E06ADA@gmail.com> References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> To: Erik Nordmark X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, The IESG , ietf@ietf.org, IETF-Announce Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:57:10 -0000 Hi Erik, Thanks for comments. You had two chances to make comments, i.e. during WGLC and IETF LC. It's way too late to send such comments. The document is now in RFC ed. = queue. The link-local address is not banished from manet routers. You can = configure it and use it for router id.=20 BUT, the document 'suggest' not to use the link-local address for = routing protocols and data packet forwarding. regards, ryuji On 2010/03/24, at 8:47, Erik Nordmark wrote: > On 02/19/10 05:42 AM, The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from the Ad-Hoc Network = Autoconfiguration >> WG (autoconf) to consider the following document: >>=20 >> - 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks ' >> as an Informational = RFC >=20 > I read this draft a few weeks back during the last call. But I didn't = send the comments because I wasn't up to speed with the WG discussion, = and I figured I could do that while talking to folks in Anaheim. But = then the draft was approved. >=20 > I have two significant issues with the document. >=20 > First of all it seems to conflate the notion of a router ID with the = IP addresses configured on the interfaces on a router. > Second of all it seems to discourage the use of IPv6 link-locals as = the IP addresses to configure on interfaces on routers. >=20 > But this seems to be counter to the current set of existing well-known = Internet routing protocols. >=20 > For instance, RIPng doesn't even use a notion of router IDs, and is = required to communicate using IPv6 link-local addresses. >=20 > OSPv3 running on IPv6 also is required to use IPv6 link-local = addresses for the exchanges AFAIK, but the router ID is a 32 bit number. >=20 > ISIS has a router ID that is a NSAP address (derived from an IEEE MAC = address), and doesn't require IP addresses to be configured on the = interfaces in order to run the protocol between the routers. >=20 > Hence router IDs doesn't need to be an IP address, and there is no = need to stay away from IPv6 link-local addresses for the above = protocols. Yet this draft has come to the conclusion that things need to = be different for links with undetermined connectivity, which makes no = sense. >=20 > Regards, > Erik >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf From teco@inf-net.nl Wed Mar 24 13:35:37 2010 Return-Path: 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 94F813A6D75; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:35:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.481 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.950, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 e0UmJLDxN2hA; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:35:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.157]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFBC93A6D86; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so1152012fgb.13 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.6.37 with SMTP id 37mr592925fgf.7.1269462944695; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-24-146.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-wireless-open-abg-24-146.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.24.146]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 3sm1808345fge.5.2010.03.24.13.35.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: <7849F9F2-EBEA-401B-AF06-C9A345E06ADA@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:35:37 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> <7849F9F2-EBEA-401B-AF06-C9A345E06ADA@gmail.com> To: Ryuji Wakikawa X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, The IESG , ietf@ietf.org, IETF-Announce Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:35:37 -0000 Ryuji, What document are you referring to? I cannot read in autoconf-adhoc-addr-model what you are saying. Regards, Teco Op 24 mrt 2010, om 20:57 heeft Ryuji Wakikawa het volgende geschreven: > Hi Erik, >=20 > Thanks for comments. >=20 > You had two chances to make comments, i.e. during WGLC and IETF LC. > It's way too late to send such comments. The document is now in RFC = ed. queue. >=20 > The link-local address is not banished from manet routers. You can = configure it and use it for router id.=20 > BUT, the document 'suggest' not to use the link-local address for = routing protocols and data packet forwarding. >=20 > regards, > ryuji >=20 >=20 > On 2010/03/24, at 8:47, Erik Nordmark wrote: >=20 >> On 02/19/10 05:42 AM, The IESG wrote: >>> The IESG has received a request from the Ad-Hoc Network = Autoconfiguration >>> WG (autoconf) to consider the following document: >>>=20 >>> - 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks ' >>> as an Informational = RFC >>=20 >> I read this draft a few weeks back during the last call. But I didn't = send the comments because I wasn't up to speed with the WG discussion, = and I figured I could do that while talking to folks in Anaheim. But = then the draft was approved. >>=20 >> I have two significant issues with the document. >>=20 >> First of all it seems to conflate the notion of a router ID with the = IP addresses configured on the interfaces on a router. >> Second of all it seems to discourage the use of IPv6 link-locals as = the IP addresses to configure on interfaces on routers. >>=20 >> But this seems to be counter to the current set of existing = well-known Internet routing protocols. >>=20 >> For instance, RIPng doesn't even use a notion of router IDs, and is = required to communicate using IPv6 link-local addresses. >>=20 >> OSPv3 running on IPv6 also is required to use IPv6 link-local = addresses for the exchanges AFAIK, but the router ID is a 32 bit number. >>=20 >> ISIS has a router ID that is a NSAP address (derived from an IEEE MAC = address), and doesn't require IP addresses to be configured on the = interfaces in order to run the protocol between the routers. >>=20 >> Hence router IDs doesn't need to be an IP address, and there is no = need to stay away from IPv6 link-local addresses for the above = protocols. Yet this draft has come to the conclusion that things need to = be different for links with undetermined connectivity, which makes no = sense. >>=20 >> Regards, >> Erik >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Wed Mar 24 15:37:28 2010 Return-Path: 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 C15923A6CA4; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:37:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.144 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.975, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] 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 8vgpHgmfXDJo; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr (smtp5-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1849B3A6CEB; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C4AD480B1; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:37:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bur91-3-82-239-213-32.fbx.proxad.net [82.239.213.32]) by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A13D48087; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:37:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4BAA942F.5050506@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:37:35 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "autoconf@ietf.org" , iesg@ietf.org References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> <7849F9F2-EBEA-401B-AF06-C9A345E06ADA@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7849F9F2-EBEA-401B-AF06-C9A345E06ADA@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100324-1, 24/03/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:37:28 -0000 Le 24/03/2010 20:57, Ryuji Wakikawa a écrit : > Hi Erik, > > Thanks for comments. > > You had two chances to make comments, i.e. during WGLC and IETF LC. > It's way too late to send such comments. The document is now in RFC > ed. queue. > > The link-local address is not banished from manet routers. You can > configure it and use it for router id. I read Erik's email as suggesting a decouple between the use of the link-local address and of a Router ID. (his "deflate" to mean contrary to "inflate"). It may be that the following paragraph in the draft led to think so: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model: > o There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local addresses > are unique across multiple links, hence they cannot be used to > reliably identify routers (it is often desirable to identify a router > with an IP address). ... because whereas it _is_ indeed desirable to identify a router with an IP address, it is not necessarily the case that that IP address is the address of an interface. E.g. OSPF does so with a Router ID being an address (an IPv4 address), and different than any IPv6 addresses it may have on an interface (be them link-local addresses) Why does the above paragraph suppose that the Router ID where the link-local address? > BUT, the document 'suggest' not to use the link-local address for > routing protocols That suggestion is a little daring because it goes against deployed OSPF, RIP, RFC4191, ICMPv6, DHCPv6, and more. > and data packet forwarding. Forwarding an ll-addressed packet across _known_ links should be indeed forbidden. Draft says so. Minor aspect: it doesn't say what's a link other than having undetermined connectivity properties, i.e. we don't know what is a link, hence get rid of Link-local addresses. This reason of undetermined link properties is a little difficult to grasp for me. Alex > > regards, ryuji > > > On 2010/03/24, at 8:47, Erik Nordmark wrote: > >> On 02/19/10 05:42 AM, The IESG wrote: >>> The IESG has received a request from the Ad-Hoc Network >>> Autoconfiguration WG (autoconf) to consider the following >>> document: >>> >>> - 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks ' >>> as an >>> Informational RFC >> >> I read this draft a few weeks back during the last call. But I >> didn't send the comments because I wasn't up to speed with the WG >> discussion, and I figured I could do that while talking to folks in >> Anaheim. But then the draft was approved. >> >> I have two significant issues with the document. >> >> First of all it seems to conflate the notion of a router ID with >> the IP addresses configured on the interfaces on a router. Second >> of all it seems to discourage the use of IPv6 link-locals as the IP >> addresses to configure on interfaces on routers. >> >> But this seems to be counter to the current set of existing >> well-known Internet routing protocols. >> >> For instance, RIPng doesn't even use a notion of router IDs, and is >> required to communicate using IPv6 link-local addresses. >> >> OSPv3 running on IPv6 also is required to use IPv6 link-local >> addresses for the exchanges AFAIK, but the router ID is a 32 bit >> number. >> >> ISIS has a router ID that is a NSAP address (derived from an IEEE >> MAC address), and doesn't require IP addresses to be configured on >> the interfaces in order to run the protocol between the routers. >> >> Hence router IDs doesn't need to be an IP address, and there is no >> need to stay away from IPv6 link-local addresses for the above >> protocols. Yet this draft has come to the conclusion that things >> need to be different for links with undetermined connectivity, >> which makes no sense. >> >> Regards, Erik >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > From erik.nordmark@sun.com Wed Mar 24 17:20:25 2010 Return-Path: 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 9E9493A6903; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 CYwBTakKAxix; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCA73A6B2B; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.17.63]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o2P0KH1l021762; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:20:18 GMT Received: from [10.7.251.248] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.251.248]) by jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o2P0KG3e920452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BAAAC41.6010405@sun.com> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:17 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100302 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> <7849F9F2-EBEA-401B-AF06-C9A345E06ADA@gmail.com> <4BAA942F.5050506@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4BAA942F.5050506@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" , iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:20:26 -0000 On 03/24/10 03:37 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > I read Erik's email as suggesting a decouple between the use of the > link-local address and of a Router ID. (his "deflate" to mean contrary > to "inflate"). It may be that the following paragraph in the draft led > to think so: > > draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model: >> o There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local addresses >> are unique across multiple links, hence they cannot be used to >> reliably identify routers (it is often desirable to identify a router >> with an IP address). > > ... because whereas it _is_ indeed desirable to identify a router with > an IP address, it is not necessarily the case that that IP address is > the address of an interface. E.g. OSPF does so with a Router ID being > an address (an IPv4 address), and different than any IPv6 addresses it > may have on an interface (be them link-local addresses) > > Why does the above paragraph suppose that the Router ID where the > link-local address? There is other text that conflate them such as this text in section 5 o an IP address assigned to an interface that connects to a link with undetermined connectivity properties should be unique, at least within the routing domain. Similar text specific to IPv6 is in a later section. The motivation for this seems to be to get a unique router ID across the domain, which I hopefully succeeded explaining is a separate issue from the IP addressed assigned to the router's interface(s). >> BUT, the document 'suggest' not to use the link-local address for >> routing protocols > > That suggestion is a little daring because it goes against deployed > OSPF, RIP, RFC4191, ICMPv6, DHCPv6, and more. Daring and inconsistent with existing practice. >> and data packet forwarding. > > Forwarding an ll-addressed packet across _known_ links should be indeed > forbidden. Draft says so. > > Minor aspect: it doesn't say what's a link other than having > undetermined connectivity properties, i.e. we don't know what is a link, > hence get rid of Link-local addresses. > > This reason of undetermined link properties is a little difficult to > grasp for me. I thought the WG had discussed this for a few years. I'm sorry if it is still not clear. Erik From erik.nordmark@sun.com Wed Mar 24 17:20:40 2010 Return-Path: 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 7AB653A6C0B for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.396 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.520, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 FRjUb1YVzSIu for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-1.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.43.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED603A6B39 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.17.59]) by sca-ea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o2P0KMpc023909 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:20:34 GMT Received: from [10.7.251.248] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.251.248]) by jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o2P0KL4C920466 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BAAAC46.3000905@sun.com> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:20:22 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100302 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: autoconf@ietf.org References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> <7849F9F2-EBEA-401B-AF06-C9A345E06ADA@gmail.com> <4BAA942F.5050506@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4BAA942F.5050506@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:20:40 -0000 On 03/24/10 03:37 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > ... because whereas it _is_ indeed desirable to identify a router with > an IP address, it is not necessarily the case that that IP address is > the address of an interface. E.g. OSPF does so with a Router ID being > an address (an IPv4 address), and different than any IPv6 addresses it > may have on an interface (be them link-local addresses) This is an aside, hence I'm not copying the IESG, but I think IS-IS got this right by using a MAC address as the router ID. Having factory assigned router IDs simply things a fair bit. Hence I don't think it is necessarily desirable to identify a router using an IP address. Erik From Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com Wed Mar 24 17:40:15 2010 Return-Path: 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 AD51C3A6903 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:40:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.82 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.82 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 eM3WKXum9AOP for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003823A67AF for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id o2P0eXix005348 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o2P0eX2X019332; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NWHT-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-09.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.115]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o2P0eWMP019319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.120]) by XCH-NWHT-09.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.115]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:40:32 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: Erik Nordmark , "autoconf@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:40:26 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IPAddressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC Thread-Index: AcrLsRKEHDEbm1K7QluF0Fi4SobHQQAAmOog Message-ID: References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com><4BAA341F.4030505@sun .com><7849F9F2-EBEA-401B-AF06-C9A345E06ADA@gmail.com><4BAA942F.5050506@gmail.com> <4BAAAC46.3000905@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4BAAAC46.3000905@sun.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IPAddressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:40:15 -0000 > This is an aside, hence I'm not copying the IESG, but I think IS-IS got > this right by using a MAC address as the router ID. Having factory > assigned router IDs simply things a fair bit. Hence I don't think it is > necessarily desirable to identify a router using an IP address. This goes with what I have been saying to the LISP guys for over a year now. An IP address identifies an *interface*; it does not identify a node (router or host). Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Fri Mar 26 09:16:47 2010 Return-Path: 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 9D5FE3A6BAB for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:16:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] 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 ZfDL9LKx9QuZ for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563E03A6B5B for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o2QGFK8e017729 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:15:20 +0100 Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o2QGFKpC030826 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:15:20 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o2QGFJTk023259 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:15:20 +0100 Message-ID: <4BACDD97.9040601@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:15:19 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "autoconf@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Autoconf] problems, gaps? 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:16:47 -0000 CP says the problem is: allocate addresses in ad-hoc networks. I disagree. My problem is mostly related to prefixes, not addresses. Allocating addesses and prefixes is not the same. Alex From teco@inf-net.nl Fri Mar 26 10:19:13 2010 Return-Path: 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 DC4993A692D for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.204 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 XK-eC2lwwKq6 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f221.google.com (mail-ew0-f221.google.com [209.85.219.221]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A4F3A6961 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy21 with SMTP id 21so2253716ewy.5 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.65.65 with SMTP id h1mr756556ebi.20.1269623965643; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-24-146.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.24.146]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 13sm740890ewy.1.2010.03.26.10.19.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:19:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Teco Boot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:19:20 +0100 Message-Id: To: autoconf@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Subject: [Autoconf] ietf-6lowpan-nd-08 and ref to baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:19:14 -0000 I mentioned a ref to the non-WG document baccelli-multi- hop-wireless-communication in ietf-6lowpan-nd-08. I think 6lowpan-nd refers to this document, but with the wrong pointer. Text in 6lowpan-nd: Due to their nature, these are considered links with undetermined connectivity properties as defined in [I-D.ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model]. This doc does not describe a nature of links. Regards, Teco. From thomas@thomasclausen.org Fri Mar 26 10:21:48 2010 Return-Path: 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 422613A6986 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:21:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.969 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.499, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 d+7GW0suScgj for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAEC63A6B15 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BCC4300B5; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-27-86.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-wireless-open-abg-27-86.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.27.86]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8997943001C; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: Thomas Heide Clausen To: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-41--740856644 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:21:59 +0100 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] ietf-6lowpan-nd-08 and ref to baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:21:48 -0000 --Apple-Mail-41--740856644 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The abstract of [I-D.ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model] reads: This document describes a model for configuring IP addresses and subnet prefixes on the interfaces of routers which connect to links with undetermined connectivity properties. Which seems to be what 6low-nd refers to.... Thomas On Mar 26, 2010, at 18:19 PM, Teco Boot wrote: > I mentioned a ref to the non-WG document baccelli-multi- > hop-wireless-communication in ietf-6lowpan-nd-08. > > I think 6lowpan-nd refers to this document, but with the > wrong pointer. > > Text in 6lowpan-nd: > Due to their nature, these are considered links with > undetermined connectivity properties as defined in > [I-D.ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model]. > > This doc does not describe a nature of links. > > Regards, Teco. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --Apple-Mail-41--740856644 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The abstract = of [I-D.ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model] = reads:

	=
This document describes a model for configuring IP =
addresses 
	=
and
   subnet prefixes on the interfaces of routers which connect =
to 
	=
links
   with undetermined connectivity =
properties.

Which seems to be what 6low-nd refers =
to....

Thomas
On Mar 26, 2010, at 18:19 = PM, Teco Boot wrote:

I = mentioned a ref to the non-WG document = baccelli-multi-
hop-wireless-communication in = ietf-6lowpan-nd-08.

I think 6lowpan-nd refers to this document, = but with the
wrong pointer.

Text in 6lowpan-nd:
Due to = their nature, these are considered links with
undetermined = connectivity properties as defined = in
[I-D.ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model].

This doc does not = describe a nature of links.

Regards, = Teco.





_____________________________________________= __
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www.iet= f.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

= --Apple-Mail-41--740856644-- From zach@sensinode.com Fri Mar 26 10:26:29 2010 Return-Path: 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 0BEB03A6B28 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:26:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.018 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.451, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 7j2nRBcTHFzo for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth-smtp.nebula.fi (auth-smtp.nebula.fi [217.30.180.105]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9992A3A6A07 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-26-31.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-wireless-open-abg-26-31.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.26.31]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth-smtp.nebula.fi (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o2QHQhdV015037 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:26:45 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Zach Shelby In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:26:40 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <93775071-2943-4C10-8E06-78DAB2EF2F84@sensinode.com> References: To: Teco Boot X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] ietf-6lowpan-nd-08 and ref to baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:26:29 -0000 Point taken, thanks. It is true that we need both a reference to the = addressing model WG document, and to the definition of what a link with = undetermined connectivity properties is = (baccelli-multihop-wireless-communication). For now we can refer to baccelli-multihop-wireless-communication = informationally (in the next version of our draft). Autoconf might want = to take this link document and publish it while rechartering?=20 Cheers, Zach On Mar 26, 2010, at 10:19 , Teco Boot wrote: > I mentioned a ref to the non-WG document baccelli-multi- > hop-wireless-communication in ietf-6lowpan-nd-08. >=20 > I think 6lowpan-nd refers to this document, but with the > wrong pointer. >=20 > Text in 6lowpan-nd: > Due to their nature, these are considered links with > undetermined connectivity properties as defined in > [I-D.ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model]. >=20 > This doc does not describe a nature of links. >=20 > Regards, Teco. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --=20 http://www.sensinode.com http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" http://6lowpan.net - New book - "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded = Internet" Mobile: +358 40 7796297 Zach Shelby Head of Research Sensinode Ltd. Kidekuja 2 88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain = legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, = please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without = producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.=20 From jari.arkko@piuha.net Fri Mar 26 11:03:49 2010 Return-Path: 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 D2D8C3A6B5B; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.133 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 7ueacX24oPfE; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6D63A6B2E; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B832CD07; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:04:10 +0200 (EET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XQKm2ChRvuE2; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:04:10 +0200 (EET) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09032CEC0; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:04:08 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <4BACF717.6030206@piuha.net> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:04:07 -0700 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Nordmark References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, The IESG , ietf@ietf.org, IETF-Announce Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:03:49 -0000 Erik, First of all, the document is *an* addressing model for ad hoc networks. It does not claim to be the only model. For instance, during working group discussions it also became apparent that link local addresses could also be employed, albeit -- as stated in the document -- the working group prefers other types of addresses. Note that this document talks about prefix and address configuration, not router IDs. You assume that we talk about router IDs because the document says that it would be beneficial to have the addresses be unique within a routing domain. But that's not the reason. The reason is that in an ad hoc network you may end up being a neighbor to any other device, and you want to avoid an address collision merely for the reasons of not getting a collision of two same addresses in the same link. Jari From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Fri Mar 26 11:18:46 2010 Return-Path: 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 4A4C23A6C3F for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:18:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.925 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.556, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] 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 p9SvcNQFfktK for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC9E3A6C33 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o2QIJ3Mq028867 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:19:03 +0100 Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o2QIJ33e020100 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:19:03 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o2QIJ3PE021030 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:19:03 +0100 Message-ID: <4BACFA96.1070709@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:19:02 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "autoconf@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Autoconf] about solutions presentations and another prefix-in-RA for routing and autoconfing(?) solution 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:18:46 -0000 Hi AUTOCONFers, I understand chairs contacted certain persons to make presentations of solutions of potential interest to AUTOCONF. Some solution space talks prefixes in RA for the goal of facilitating routing. One could see this as auto-configuring, probably. If yes, I wanted to put forward an older draft using prefixes in RA, of 2007, that I consider resubmitting before the next IETF: draft-petrescu-manemo-nano-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-manemo-nano-00 This draft employs link-local addresses and will continue so. Its goal is to distribute prefixes of Mobile Routers, within the same well-defined link, for facilitating routing and forwarding. Since first published we have also performed prototyping work, with a ping demo in 2009. As usual, wireshark dissectors available upon request. Source is opensource GPL based on radvd. One should know that this draft has a direct competitor in the MEXT group, which does approximately the same thing, with same software source, but of course differently. And there's of course RFC4191 "more specific routes" in this space. Alex From erik.nordmark@sun.com Fri Mar 26 11:23:42 2010 Return-Path: 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 89A4B3A6C4C; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:23:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.483 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 BspIG5AIeayc; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-1.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.43.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446673A6C48; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.17.59]) by sca-ea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o2QIN84N005843; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:23:08 GMT Received: from [10.7.251.248] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.251.248]) by jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o2QIN7k6597269 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BACFB8B.70701@sun.com> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:23:07 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100302 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jari Arkko References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> <4BACF717.6030206@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: <4BACF717.6030206@piuha.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, The IESG , ietf@ietf.org, IETF-Announce Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:23:42 -0000 On 03/26/10 11:04 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Erik, > > First of all, the document is *an* addressing model for ad hoc networks. > It does not claim to be the only model. For instance, during working > group discussions it also became apparent that link local addresses > could also be employed, albeit -- as stated in the document -- the > working group prefers other types of addresses. > > Note that this document talks about prefix and address configuration, > not router IDs. You assume that we talk about router IDs because the > document says that it would be beneficial to have the addresses be > unique within a routing domain. But that's not the reason. The reason is > that in an ad hoc network you may end up being a neighbor to any other > device, and you want to avoid an address collision merely for the > reasons of not getting a collision of two same addresses in the same link. This paragraph talks about the requirements of the routing protocols, not about the need for routers to move around: Routing protocols running on a router may exhibit different requirements for uniqueness of interface addresses; some have no such requirements, others have requirements ranging from local uniqueness only, to uniqueness within, at least, the routing domain (as defined in [RFC1136]). The only requirement I know if in the *routing protocols* is around router ID uniqueness. If you disagree, then can you please explain why there is a need to refer to routing protocols in the above paragraph? Erik From jari.arkko@piuha.net Fri Mar 26 11:40:01 2010 Return-Path: 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 EBA743A6B5F; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:40:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.284, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 YX6a8sjAQ-oN; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C423A6B45; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D18A2CEC0; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:40:24 +0200 (EET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JTTWsrAg-6FT; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:40:23 +0200 (EET) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422F82CD07; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:40:22 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <4BACFF95.1040204@piuha.net> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:40:21 -0700 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Nordmark References: <20100219134216.D3CBE28C1CF@core3.amsl.com> <4BAA341F.4030505@sun.com> <4BACF717.6030206@piuha.net> <4BACFB8B.70701@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4BACFB8B.70701@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Last Call: draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model (IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks) to Informational RFC 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:40:02 -0000 Erik, > This paragraph talks about the requirements of the routing protocols, > not about the need for routers to move around: > Routing protocols running on a router may exhibit different > requirements for uniqueness of interface addresses; some have no such > requirements, others have requirements ranging from local uniqueness > only, to uniqueness within, at least, the routing domain (as defined > in [RFC1136]). > > The only requirement I know if in the *routing protocols* is around > router ID uniqueness. > If you disagree, then can you please explain why there is a need to > refer to routing protocols in the above paragraph? I can see why the text in the document may be confusing. But I think the primary reason we require uniqueness is the one that I explained in the previous e-mail. I would also like to point out that there are *some* routing protocols that *do* require unique IDs -- I'm told that this is the case with OLSR, for instance. So as far as I can tell the text is factually correct, even though I do agree with you that for most routing protocols its not the case. Jari From teco@inf-net.nl Fri Mar 26 14:59:11 2010 Return-Path: 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 3FD883A6958 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.822 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.432, BAYES_20=-0.74, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 grzsDh3NiV7U for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679D53A699F for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so2228489vws.31 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.107.142 with SMTP id b14mr1034137vcp.30.1269640760902; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-24-146.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.24.146]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm3240965qwg.48.2010.03.26.14.59.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Teco Boot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:59:16 +0100 Message-Id: <6F5F8F06-E4E2-4363-BA45-A5307B8566CC@inf-net.nl> To: autoconf@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: standards-ipr@cisco.com, "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , dlang@cisco.com Subject: [Autoconf] IPR on draft-boot-autoconf-brdp 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:59:11 -0000 The IPR issue on building trees popped up during the Autoconf meeting. I can say BRDP is inspired by TD, but have a very different target. I checked again the patents in the claim on RPL. My opinion is that the patents are NOT applicable to BRDP. This because BRDP is NOT about building topologies and NOT about routing. The patents are. There is a BRDP related draft on routing: draft-boot-brdp-based-routing. This is a very different approach than what is described in the patents. My proposal leaves providing paths to the routing protocol. Pointers to the RPL IPR topic: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg03095.html https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1270/ To repeat Pascal: 1) I'm not a lawyer, and 2) even less your own lawyer. If I'm wrong, I expect Cisco takes action. Even if Cisco claims, I think there is no problem, with the outcome in ROLL in mind. Also, Cisco was aware of my work from the very beginning. The IPR issue never raised. Regards, Teco From pthubert@cisco.com Sat Mar 27 08:05:20 2010 Return-Path: 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 14A693A69BD for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:05:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.369 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 jH43hFgnKH8y for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60E93A69CB for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAD+7rUurR7H+/2dsb2JhbACbM3OlHZhyhQEE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,319,1267401600"; d="scan'208";a="503981126" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2010 15:05:41 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2RF5enx020778; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:05:41 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:05:40 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:05:31 +0100 Message-ID: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D0188AA30@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <6F5F8F06-E4E2-4363-BA45-A5307B8566CC@inf-net.nl> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IPR on draft-boot-autoconf-brdp Thread-Index: AcrNL57yZZJ2ga8pTSeA5DWBnapkzQAiViPA References: <6F5F8F06-E4E2-4363-BA45-A5307B8566CC@inf-net.nl> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Teco Boot" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2010 15:05:40.0296 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6E1E480:01CACDBE] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:11:31 -0700 Cc: "standards-ipr\(mailer list\)" , "Dan Lang \(dlang\)" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] IPR on draft-boot-autoconf-brdp 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:05:20 -0000 Hi Teco: Sorry for not following Autoconf. I'm really interested in the subject matter but could not fit it in my current bandwidth. For the subject at hand, Cisco has already provided terms about TD and RPL, see: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg03090.html and https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/720/ My understanding is that the "standard adopted by IETF " in those terms does not have to be called RPL or TD. Also that in "technology in this document", the document is the draft, so the terms apply to any Cisco IPR present in the draft whether it is listed above or not in the statement. So (still my understanding is that) whatever you might have borrowed from those should be covered by Cisco's RAND terms. I understand that you did proper diligence to announce that your document may borrow from TD and RPL so the group is aware of the existence of the both IPR and the terms. It does not hurt some times so repeat this to make sure that new comers are also aware of that IPR, so then again you're making proper diligence here and I thank you for that. Then again for all: 1) I'm not a lawyer, and 2) even less your own lawyer. So I will not assert whether the Cisco IPR included in RPL or TD applies or not to BRDP. You know it is very slippery ground for us engineers, in particular because the method might count more than the goal for which a patent is filed. If you need Cisco to provide a RAND statement on your draft, then Dan is certainly the right person. My understanding is that this is only needed if you have technology in the BRDP draft that is not in either the TD or RPL draft and still has Cisco IPR on it. For my best knowledge there is no such thing, but I can dig in the latest version within reasonable time if you think that might be the case. Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Teco Boot [mailto:teco@inf-net.nl] > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:59 PM > To: autoconf@ietf.org > Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Dan Lang (dlang); standards-ipr(mailer list) > Subject: IPR on draft-boot-autoconf-brdp >=20 > The IPR issue on building trees popped up during the Autoconf meeting. I can > say BRDP is inspired by TD, but have a very different target. I checked again > the patents in the claim on RPL. > My opinion is that the patents are NOT applicable to BRDP. This because > BRDP is NOT about building topologies and NOT about routing. > The patents are. >=20 > There is a BRDP related draft on routing: draft-boot-brdp-based-routing. > This is a very different approach than what is described in the patents. > My proposal leaves providing paths to the routing protocol. >=20 > Pointers to the RPL IPR topic: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg03095.html > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1270/ >=20 > To repeat Pascal: 1) I'm not a lawyer, and 2) even less your own lawyer. If I'm > wrong, I expect Cisco takes action. >=20 > Even if Cisco claims, I think there is no problem, with the outcome in ROLL in > mind. Also, Cisco was aware of my work from the very beginning. The IPR > issue never raised. >=20 > Regards, Teco