Subject: [Autoconf] Autoconf Discussion - Scenario #1

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:02:53 -0700

I went back and looked at Dave's presentation about autoconf-multisubnet-manet
(www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/autoconf-0/autoconf-0.ppt). It
provides some good food for thought, and fits with the MANET routing
protocols.

Do people agree with the ideas below? paraphrased from above presentation

AUTOCONF protocol determines/allocates prefixes not addresses to MANET routers

MANET routers assign a prefix to a loopback interface or to a
non-MANET interface for clients

MANET routers pick a router-id, and often configure an address within
this prefix

MANET routing protocol exchanges prefix routes

client nodes attached to MANET routers, pick their address(es) in the
router's prefix normally

Ian Chakeres

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

---

From: Christophe Jelger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:25:19 +0200

Hello Ian,

Overall this sounds very reasonable. See detailed comments inline.

> AUTOCONF protocol determines/allocates prefixes not addresses to MANET 

fine, except that IPv6 routers are not supposed to perform stateless 
address autoconfiguration: so yes AUTOCONF determines prefixes, but 
depending on the scheme one might need to also assign an address for the 
router (which is a side problem).

> non-MANET interface for clients

as expressed in a previous email today, I'm not sure what this brings us 
so I'm not for or against it yet: I'm waiting to be convinced this is a 
good idea. ;-) I don't see any problems with assigning addresses to 
interfaces as long as routing protocols advertise prefixes (by the way 
the link to ppt slides you sent yesterday says the unnumbered trick is 
useless with IPv6 and I agree so far).

> MANET routers pick a router-id, and often configure an address within

what's the difference between a prefix and a router-id? Is there any? I 
think it's just fine if we use the term prefix and forget about this 
router-id stuff.

> client nodes attached to MANET routers, pick their address(es) in the

fine.

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:35:22 -0700

> router (which is a side problem).

Two points here:
1) the router would not be doing SLAAC to get an address
on its access interface; it would be using some prefix
delegation mechanism to get a prefix via its access
interface that it could use on a loopback interface *or*
for subnetting on its downstream attached interfaces.
2) the router still needs a unique link-local address on
its access interface - unless the access interface is a
p2p interface in which case it doesn't even need that.

Fred
[email-masked]