From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 05 15:51:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOK9X-0001wd-3J; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:51:27 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOK94-00016u-Oo; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:50:58 -0500 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOK8f-00007j-LA; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:50:58 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802A2177F2; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 20:50:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HOK8B-0005fn-8U; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:50:03 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:50:03 -0500 X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 31247fb3be228bb596db9127becad0bc Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: [Autoconf] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-01.txt X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --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 : Mobile Ad hoc Network Architecture Author(s) : I. Chakeres, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-01.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2007-3-5 This document discusses Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs). It introduces basic MANET terms, characteristics, and challenges. This document also defines several MANET entities and architectural concepts. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. 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: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-3-5124430.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-3-5124430.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --NextPart-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 07 04:12:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOsCD-0003zH-3j; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:12:29 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOqxJ-0002eE-0O for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:53:01 -0500 Received: from cartero2.sci.uma.es ([150.214.47.226]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOqxH-0004rc-MS for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:53:00 -0500 Received: from correo2.uma.es (vesta2.sci.uma.es [150.214.40.7]) by cartero2.sci.uma.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1898A13C6C0 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:52:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from pc-0d38f6d9d1eb.dte.uma.es (pc43te.dte.uma.es [150.214.59.43]) by correo2.uma.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id F237E8005A for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:52:51 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:53:00 +0100 To: autoconf@ietf.org From: Alicia =?iso-8859-1?Q?Trivi=F1o?= Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Subject: [Autoconf] Global Connectivity: Doubts X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello: I have several doubts related to the "Global=20 connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks"=20 (draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt) that=20 integrates mobile ad hoc networks into the Internet. - The validity of entries in the Internet Gateway=20 list and in the Internet Gateway Prefix List is=20 derived from the IGWADV-N. Which field is used=20 for this purpose? The =93Reachable Time=94? (I think=20 that the =93Router Lifetime=94 could not be used as=20 it is set to 0 when NDP extensions are employed). - Should not the "Router Lifetime" include=20 information about the validity of the routing=20 information in both cases:IGWADV-N or IGWADV-M ? - In the IGWADV-N format, the M (Managed Address=20 Autoconfiguration) bit is suppressed although it=20 is present in the RA messages (NDP specifications). Why is this bit= suppressed? Any help? Thanks in advance, Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91 Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion Universidad de Malaga Campus Universitario de Teatinos 29071 Malaga, Spain _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 07 06:15:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOu70-0005De-AH; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:15:14 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOu6y-0004zB-Sd for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:15:12 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.136.123]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOu6v-0006Z4-Oi for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:15:12 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE20A9631 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:15:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from acorde (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9BE6A90D9 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:15:07 +0100 (CET) From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: autoconf@ietf.org Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:15:07 +0100 Message-Id: <1173266107.22733.62.camel@acorde> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Subject: [Autoconf] About an update of draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0462984088==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --===============0462984088== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ZPqm6m7XBxU5EnWv/XBu" --=-ZPqm6m7XBxU5EnWv/XBu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I was thinking in updating my autoconf solutions survey draft [1] and submit a -01 version. I'd like to know whether you think it would be helpful for the WG discussions or not. If the WG thinks it may help, I can update the draft in a few weeks. Thanks for your opinion on that. Kind Regards, Carlos [1] "Survey of IP address autoconfiguration mechanisms for MANETs" Carlos J. Bernardos, Mar=EDa Calder=F3n http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/papers/draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey-00.= txt --=20 =A1AS=D3CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 --=-ZPqm6m7XBxU5EnWv/XBu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBF7p677QxZUr+JuXQRAnDVAKDFARoNqCggPxsqkLKq44uKoQbPLACfX++2 ++UcgPyBoTsNFU7Ien4j/Kg= =wjcq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ZPqm6m7XBxU5EnWv/XBu-- --===============0462984088== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --===============0462984088==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 07 08:21:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOw4w-0007d9-QR; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:21:14 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOw4v-0007c4-GA; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:21:13 -0500 Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOw4u-0004rK-3w; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:21:13 -0500 Received: from [192.168.112.199] (sphinx.lix.polytechnique.fr [129.104.11.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l27DKtCt015280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:20:55 +0100 Message-ID: <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:20:54 +0100 From: Emmanuel Baccelli User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45EEBC37.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf-problem-statement-02.txt Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to identify: - what is missing, and needs to be included? - what is in excess, and needs to be removed? - what is in the document, but is not entirely in the desired shape? - what is well addressed in the document? Such points must be discussed now on the Autoconf mailing list to prepare the forthcoming working group meeting in Prague. Cheers Emmanuel _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 07 08:58:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOwej-0001oC-Ts; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:58:13 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOwei-0001o2-OA for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:58:12 -0500 Received: from outbound.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.171]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOwee-0000nP-Fp for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:58:12 -0500 Received: from sphinx.lix.polytechnique.fr ([129.104.11.1] helo=[192.168.112.180]) by outbound.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HOweV-000DYA-T7 for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:58:00 -0500 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 129.104.11.1 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.mailhop.org/outbound/abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: voop Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: autoconf@ietf.org From: Thomas Clausen Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:57:53 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Subject: [Autoconf] Initial Autoconf Agenda X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Dear all, An initial AUTOCONF wg agenda has been uploaded to the ietf.org WWW- site: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/agenda/autoconf.txt The main focus is to finalise the architecture I-D and the PS I-D, so good time is allocated to this. There's a slot for "Other related I-Ds and announcements" where it is possible to make brief announcements or presentations of related activities and I-Ds -- please contact the chairs if you have anything to add here, and the agenda will be updated accordingly. In order to be productive at the meeting, I urge you all (regardless of if you will be in Prague or not) to carefully review the I-Ds being discussed, and to provide your comments, feedback and suggestions on the list prior to the meeting. Should you happen agree to the content of the I-Ds, then please do speak up also -- it makes it easier to estimate how the wg thinks about the documents. Reminder: we need two minute takers and two jabber scribes for the meeting. I'd like to take this chance to ask for volunteers..... Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Clausen Thomas.Clausen@polytechnique.fr http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/Labo/Thomas.Clausen/ http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 07 11:04:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOyd3-000740-AH; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:04:37 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOyd0-00073G-Fj; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:04:34 -0500 Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.83.3]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOycO-0005Im-LT; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:04:34 -0500 Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id l27G3nhM009021; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:03:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from SEXTANT [132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.12.43) with SMTP id M2007030711035107757 ; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:03:51 -0500 From: "Joe Macker" To: "'Emmanuel Baccelli'" , References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:03:50 -0500 Message-ID: <020901c760d2$322b5dd0$165cfa84@SEXTANT> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcdgvGK8SlDfAtrqQUKu1Q81uA9OCAAFOGog In-Reply-To: <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: [Autoconf] RE: [manet] Autoconf Problem Statement X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Still reviewing but wanted to comment on improvement. Good job removing state diagrams and DAD references based on feedback from last two meetings. -Joe >-----Original Message----- >From: Emmanuel Baccelli [mailto:Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr] >Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:21 AM >To: manet@ietf.org >Cc: autoconf@ietf.org >Subject: [manet] Autoconf Problem Statement > >Hi all, > >the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. > >http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-a utoconf-problem-statement-02.txt > >Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to >identify: > > - what is missing, and needs to be included? > - what is in excess, and needs to be removed? > - what is in the document, but is not entirely in the desired shape? > - what is well addressed in the document? > >Such points must be discussed now on the Autoconf mailing list >to prepare the forthcoming working group meeting in Prague. > >Cheers >Emmanuel > >_______________________________________________ >manet mailing list >manet@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 04:40:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPbaK-0006kZ-VF; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:40:24 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPbEZ-0003oU-5d for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:17:56 -0500 Received: from cartero1.sci.uma.es ([150.214.47.225]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPbDj-0004ZQ-Pd for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:17:54 -0500 Received: from correo1.uma.es (vesta1.sci.uma.es [150.214.40.21]) by cartero1.sci.uma.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581E71826D for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:15:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from pc-0d38f6d9d1eb.dte.uma.es (pc43te.dte.uma.es [150.214.59.43]) by correo1.uma.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8FA1A4078 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:15:30 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20070309100947.03d02a48@dte.uma.es> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:15:42 +0100 To: autoconf@ietf.org From: Alicia =?iso-8859-1?Q?Trivi=F1o?= Subject: Re: [Autoconf] About an update of draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey In-Reply-To: <1173266107.22733.62.camel@acorde> References: <1173266107.22733.62.camel@acorde> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Carlos: I think your survey draft is very useful as it=20 explains the main proposals for address=20 autoconfiguration in MANETs. However, some other=20 recent mechanisms should also be included. For instance: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf/draft-jeong-autoconf-pdad-on-demand-00.txt So, I think the updated version could be helpful. Best Regards, At 12:15 07/03/2007, you wrote: >Hi all, > > I was thinking in updating my autoconf solutions survey draft [1] >and submit a -01 version. I'd like to know whether you think it would be >helpful for the WG discussions or not. If the WG thinks it may help, I >can update the draft in a few weeks. > > Thanks for your opinion on that. > > Kind Regards, > > Carlos > >[1] "Survey of IP address autoconfiguration mechanisms for MANETs" > Carlos J. Bernardos, Mar=EDa Calder=F3n >http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/papers/draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey-00.= txt >-- >=A1AS=D3CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws > Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net > GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Autoconf mailing list >Autoconf@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91 Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion Universidad de Malaga Campus Universitario de Teatinos 29071 Malaga, Spain _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 05:20:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPcCb-0007ed-UN; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:19:57 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPcCZ-0007UZ-NQ for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:19:56 -0500 Received: from cartero2.sci.uma.es ([150.214.47.226]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPcCY-000650-5x for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:19:55 -0500 Received: from correo2.uma.es (vesta2.sci.uma.es [150.214.40.7]) by cartero2.sci.uma.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833E613CA13 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:19:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from pc-0d38f6d9d1eb.dte.uma.es (pc43te.dte.uma.es [150.214.59.43]) by correo2.uma.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CDC8005D for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:19:47 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20070309110110.03d044f8@dte.uma.es> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:19:59 +0100 To: autoconf@ietf.org From: Alicia =?iso-8859-1?Q?Trivi=F1o?= Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement In-Reply-To: <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36 X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, I think that there is one issue that has not been=20 considered in the draft. Analyzing the proposed=20 mechanisms for integrating MANET into the=20 Internet, there are two possible implementations for the Internet Gateway: - previously installed in those scenarii where=20 MANET are expected to be connected to the Internet [1] [2]. - non-dedicated gateways. In those scenarii where=20 only a ISP Edge Router is installed, a MANET node=20 can autoconfigure itself to act as the Internet Gateway [3]. Maybe it will be interesting to include this point. Best Regards, Alicia Trivi=F1o [1] R. Wakikawa, J. T. Malinen, C. E. Perkins, A.=20 Nilsson, A. J. Tuominen, =93Global Connectivity for=20 IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks=94,=20 draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt, Internet=20 Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, March, 2006 [2] C. Jelger, T. Noel, A. Frey, "Gateway and=20 address autoconfiguration for IPv6 adhoc=20 networks",=20 draft-jelger-manet-gateway-autoconf-v6-02.txt,=20 Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, April 2004. [3] S. Singh, J.H. Kim, Y.G. Choi, Y.S. Roh, "=20 Mobile multi-gateway support for IPv6 mobile ad=20 hoc networks", draft-singh-manet-mmg-00.txt,=20 Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, June 2004. At 14:20 07/03/2007, you wrote: >Hi all, > >the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. > >http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf-prob= lem-statement-02.txt > >Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to >identify: > > - what is missing, and needs to be included? > - what is in excess, and needs to be removed? > - what is in the document, but is not entirely in the desired shape? > - what is well addressed in the document? > >Such points must be discussed now on the=20 >Autoconf mailing list to prepare the forthcoming=20 >working group meeting in Prague. > >Cheers >Emmanuel > >_______________________________________________ >Autoconf mailing list >Autoconf@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91 Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion Universidad de Malaga Campus Universitario de Teatinos 29071 Malaga, Spain _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 05:49:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPcfU-0001zv-GP; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:49:48 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPcfP-0001sc-RA; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:49:43 -0500 Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.179]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPcfN-0002jj-Hj; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:49:43 -0500 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1173437380!11362623!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 26736 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2007 10:49:40 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-5.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2007 10:49:40 -0000 Received: from il06exr04.mot.com (il06exr04.mot.com [129.188.137.134]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id l29Ana5Z004240; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 03:49:38 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.161.201.117] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by il06exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l29AnYeZ003031; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 04:49:35 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <45F13BB9.6060807@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:49:29 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Emmanuel Baccelli Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: > Hi all, > > the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. > > http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf-problem-statement-02.txt > > > > > Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to identify: > > - what is missing, and needs to be included? - what is in excess, and > needs to be removed? - what is in the document, but is not entirely > in the desired shape? - what is well addressed in the document? Hi Emmanuel, This is a very generous question and please let me take advantage of its opportunities. I was wondering whether draft misses some aspects. This draft: > Standard automatic IPv6 address/prefix assignment solutions [5], [3] > [4] do not work "as-is" on MANETs due to ad hoc networks' unique > characteristics [2], and new mechanisms are therefore needed. While I agree the widespread address assignment solutions rfc2462 stateless, rfc3315 DHCP and rfc2461 ND are not suited for MANET environments, I think that only some existing _address_ assignment mechanisms are listed while existing _prefix_ assignment mechanisms are not listed. DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation is such a mechanism RFC3633. There exist other prefix assignment mechanisms that are currently in draft shape, that could be relevant: -Prefix Delegation for NEMOv6 Mobile Routers (based on Mobile IPv6 allocation or on DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation: 2 drafts). -ICMPv6 Redirect is not quite a prefix assignment, but its effects are the inclusion in the routing table of a /128 next-hop. -two personal proposal as extension to ND to assign prefixes. drafts, no WG no BoF - see manemo@mobileip.jp. -there may be others if one looks harder. Address (not prefix) assignment is a much wider landscape with more drafts/rfcs that are less widespread use and that are not DHCP nor SLAAC (Stateless Address Auto Config), see Fast Mobile IPv6 EXPERIMENTAL RFC and Fast Mobile IPv4 WG item in MIP4 WG. Auto-generation of addresses (from EUI64 IEEE-802, or from other link's ID, or from other secret material - CGA, HBA) exist as well, in various RFC or draft form. That said, I will post separately on other aspects. Thanks, Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 06:29:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPdHS-0001Cc-R2; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:29:02 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPdHQ-0001CN-P4 for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:29:00 -0500 Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.179]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPdHP-00048E-Cf for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:29:00 -0500 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1173439738!18439325!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 18372 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2007 11:28:58 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-9.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2007 11:28:58 -0000 Received: from il06exr01.mot.com (il06exr01.mot.com [129.188.137.131]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id l29BSwJj011927; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 04:28:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.161.201.117] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l29BSvW4019186; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 05:28:57 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <45F144F3.9000103@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:28:51 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shubhranshu Subject: Re: MANET interfaces and changing factors (was: [Autoconf] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-00.txt) References: <03ef01c75819$69d211f0$7c046c6b@sisodomain.com> In-Reply-To: <03ef01c75819$69d211f0$7c046c6b@sisodomain.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93e7fb8fef2e780414389440f367c879 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Shubhranshu wrote: >> I'd like to ask everyone to review the new and improved MANET >> Architecture document. It now contains a section about addressing >> that summarizes what Thomas presented in San Diego. > > I would also like to suggest those who plans to review to look into > the San Diego presentation slides related to MANET architecture > available at > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/autoconf-0.pdf Also, it > might help if authors could list all the changes compared to earlier > version. > >> >> Please send me any comments. > > I would also encourage to send comments to the mailing list. Thanks for the request. I would like to comment, the draft is at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-01.txt I think the section 4 MANET Interface Characteristics is very relevant and gives a good picture about what MANET Interfaces are expected to act. I would like to give some thoughts on MANET Interfaces. I think we need to identify what is the changing factor that makes this behaviour so fuzzy, fuzziness described very well in section 4.2.2 as a Challenge. And find a practical computer-related (not radio interference or physical movement) factor. If we identify a computer-related factor then we can deal with it, otherwise not. IMHO an interface is assigned one functionality at a time, then something happens in that computer that the functionality must change. The changing factor is what happens in that computer. Example: an interface is configured as a RA advertising interface, then for some reason the computer decides no longer it is a router on that interface but a host, so it should stop being an RA advertising interface. A similar example with OSPF, send LSAs on an interface but at some point decide to send same LSAs on another interface. Alex > > -- Shubhranshu > > >> Ian Chakeres >> >> On 2/15/07, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > > wrote: >>> 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 : Mobile Ad hoc Network Architecture Author(s) >>> : I. Chakeres, et al. Filename : >>> draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-00.txt Pages : 20 Date >>> : 2007-2-15 >>> >>> >>> This document discusses Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs). It >>> introduces basic MANET terms, characteristics, and challenges. >>> This document also defines several MANET entities and >>> architectural concepts. >>> >>> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-00.txt >>> >>> >>> To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message >>> to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org >>> > with the word unsubscribe in the body of >>> the message. You can also visit >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change >>> your subscription settings. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with >>> the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. >>> After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get >>> draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-00.txt". >>> >>> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>> >>> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. >>> >>> Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org . >>> In the body type: "FILE >>> /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-00.txt". >>> >>> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in >>> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this >>> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" >>> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a >>> MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail > readers >>> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with >>> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split >>> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on >>> how to manipulate these messages. >>> >>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >>> Internet-Draft. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing >>> list Autoconf@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing >> list Autoconf@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 07:23:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPe88-0003Tj-Qe; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:23:28 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPe86-0003TS-J3; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:23:26 -0500 Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com ([216.82.253.51]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPe83-0002Vq-68; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:23:26 -0500 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1173443001!3013430!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 20329 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2007 12:23:21 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-15.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2007 12:23:21 -0000 Received: from il06exr03.mot.com (il06exr03.mot.com [129.188.137.133]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id l29CNLKD023367; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 05:23:21 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.161.201.117] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by il06exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l29CNKVd025849; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 06:23:20 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <45F151B2.3030201@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:23:14 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Emmanuel Baccelli Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: > Hi all, > > the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. > > http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf-problem-statement-02.txt > > > > Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to identify: > > - what is missing, and needs to be included? - what is in excess, and > needs to be removed? - what is in the document, but is not entirely > in the desired shape? - what is well addressed in the document? Do you think autoconf prefix autoconfiguration problem could accommodate a problem whereby two Mobile Routers serving Local Fixed Nodes need to exchange routing table entries? The scenario is a scene where two vehicles arrives and stay put for a while. In each vehicle there's a fixed Mobile Router. EAch additional computer is fixed in each vehicle and is called a Local Fixed Node (eg a laptop, or car engine control, or pda - all fixed in each vehicle). Each Mobile Router has an egress interface, whose radio is receivable from outside the vehicle. The radio in the vehicle is not visible outside, especially when all doors are shut close. There's no Internet connectivity at this scene, no WMAN infrastructure, all communication is built locally. With this setting, although one LFN in one vehicle could talk to the other LFN in another vehicle (via the external inter-vehicular radio), the two MRs currently have no means to exchange routing information (other than OSPF or DHCP, which require pre-configuration of the other peer prior to arriving at the scene). What do you think about this problem? Could it be accommodated somewhere in the AUTOCONF Problem Statement draft? The solutions that _may_ be pertinent to this problem are Neighbour Discovery extensions, specifically putting prefixes in RA or in NA. There are about two drafts in this space, I can refer them if interest is. Is an AUTOCONF or MANET existing solution draft addressing this problem already? Thanks in advance, Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 07:57:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPeeh-0007et-61; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:57:07 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPeeg-0007ek-06; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:57:06 -0500 Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp ([2001:200:0:8803:203:47ff:fedf:73a6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPeec-0000iM-UT; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:57:05 -0500 Received: from [192.168.3.7] (softbank219198090087.bbtec.net [219.198.90.87]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB4A4D9A2; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 21:56:35 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <45F15983.9050009@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:56:35 +0900 From: Jean Lorchat User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <45F151B2.3030201@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <45F151B2.3030201@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Alex, > Each Mobile Router has an egress interface, whose radio is receivable > from outside the vehicle. The radio in the vehicle is not visible > outside, especially when all doors are shut close. Why do you mention this in-vehicle radio ? Can it get involved in the scenario ? or did you want to describe the ingress interface ? > There's no Internet connectivity at this scene, no WMAN infrastructure, > all communication is built locally. > > With this setting, although one LFN in one vehicle could talk to the > other LFN in another vehicle (via the external inter-vehicular radio), > the two MRs currently have no means to exchange routing information > (other than OSPF or DHCP, which require pre-configuration of the other > peer prior to arriving at the scene). If MANET is running on the (egress) radio interface, then OLSRv2 can solve the problem (by using the "Local Attached Network Set", and putting information about these prefixes in the periodic TC messages. You even don't have to solicit the prefix information). > The solutions that _may_ be pertinent to this problem are Neighbour > Discovery extensions, specifically putting prefixes in RA or in NA. > There are about two drafts in this space, I can refer them if interest is. > > Is an AUTOCONF or MANET existing solution draft addressing this problem > already? At least OLSRv2 does. OLSR(v1) has support for "Host Network Attachment" but I think they only accomodate IPv4 prefixes. Hope this helps, Jean _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 08:11:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPesl-0004tD-Fv; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:11:39 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPesk-0004t0-2D; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:11:38 -0500 Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.179]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPese-0004nj-VQ; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:11:38 -0500 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1173445890!10838210!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 9437 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2007 13:11:30 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2007 13:11:30 -0000 Received: from il06exr01.mot.com (il06exr01.mot.com [129.188.137.131]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id l29DBT0k004019; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 06:11:30 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.161.201.117] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l29DBSKV010993; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:11:29 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <45F15CFA.1070605@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:11:22 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean Lorchat Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <45F151B2.3030201@gmail.com> <45F15983.9050009@sfc.wide.ad.jp> In-Reply-To: <45F15983.9050009@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Jean, thanks for message, please allow me to ask a few details that would save me documented reading. Jean Lorchat wrote: > Hi Alex, > >> Each Mobile Router has an egress interface, whose radio is >> receivable from outside the vehicle. The radio in the vehicle is >> not visible outside, especially when all doors are shut close. > > Why do you mention this in-vehicle radio ? Can it get involved in the > scenario ? or did you want to describe the ingress interface ? Right, I just wanted to describe the ingress interface. The fact that the in-vehicle interface is wireless does not mean (in this scenario) that any device is moving out/in the vehicle. Not for this scenario. >> There's no Internet connectivity at this scene, no WMAN >> infrastructure, all communication is built locally. >> >> With this setting, although one LFN in one vehicle could talk to >> the other LFN in another vehicle (via the external inter-vehicular >> radio), the two MRs currently have no means to exchange routing >> information (other than OSPF or DHCP, which require >> pre-configuration of the other peer prior to arriving at the >> scene). > > If MANET is running on the (egress) radio interface, then OLSRv2 can > solve the problem (by using the "Local Attached Network Set", and > putting information about these prefixes in the periodic TC messages. > > What's the dst address of periodic TC messages? Is that a multicast address? A unicast address? If unicast - then somehow the router should be pre-configured with the address of the destination, no? If multicast - then somehow the receiving router must express interest in this multicast group before receiving a TC from another router, no? > You even don't have to solicit the prefix information). I think sometimes it's useful to solicit for a TC, especially when one needs a quick response and the sender's timer is too long. >> The solutions that _may_ be pertinent to this problem are Neighbour >> Discovery extensions, specifically putting prefixes in RA or in >> NA. There are about two drafts in this space, I can refer them if >> interest is. >> >> Is an AUTOCONF or MANET existing solution draft addressing this >> problem already? > > At least OLSRv2 does. OLSR(v1) has support for "Host Network > Attachment" but I think they only accomodate IPv4 prefixes. Can OLSRv2 on one MR realize somehow that all other Mobile Routers have left the scene and no longer send TC messages when it's alone? Is there a form of unreachability detection or test or similar mechanism? Thanks, Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 09:16:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPftR-0006Oy-Bw; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:16:25 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPftQ-0006OY-8X for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:16:24 -0500 Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPftC-00016o-9V for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:16:24 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (ras75-3-82-226-221-97.fbx.proxad.net [82.226.221.97]) (authenticated bits=0) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l29EFkHI010255 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:15:47 +0100 Message-ID: <45F16C10.2080507@inria.fr> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:15:44 +0100 From: Emmanuel Baccelli User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <7.0.1.0.0.20070309110110.03d044f8@dte.uma.es> In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20070309110110.03d044f8@dte.uma.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45F16C12.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by discorde.inria.fr id l29EFkHI010255 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Alicia, the problem statement makes the difference between 2 categorie of=20 scenarii: (i) connected MANET and (ii) standalone MANET. Conceptually,=20 the difference made is whether or not you may have access (possibly=20 through several hops) to a "traditional" server. So the sub-scenarii you=20 are pointing out are covered, since they address adding more hops to=20 reach the Edge Router. Emmanuel Alicia Trivi=F1o a =E9crit : > Hi all, >=20 > I think that there is one issue that has not been considered in the=20 > draft. Analyzing the proposed mechanisms for integrating MANET into the= =20 > Internet, there are two possible implementations for the Internet Gatew= ay: >=20 > - previously installed in those scenarii where MANET are expected to be= =20 > connected to the Internet [1] [2]. >=20 > - non-dedicated gateways. In those scenarii where only a ISP Edge Route= r=20 > is installed, a MANET node can autoconfigure itself to act as the=20 > Internet Gateway [3]. >=20 > Maybe it will be interesting to include this point. >=20 > Best Regards, >=20 > Alicia Trivi=F1o >=20 >=20 > [1] R. Wakikawa, J. T. Malinen, C. E. Perkins, A. Nilsson, A. J.=20 > Tuominen, =93Global Connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks=94,=20 > draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt, Internet Draft, Internet=20 > Engineering Task Force, March, 2006 >=20 > [2] C. Jelger, T. Noel, A. Frey, "Gateway and address autoconfiguration= =20 > for IPv6 adhoc networks", draft-jelger-manet-gateway-autoconf-v6-02.txt= ,=20 > Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, April 2004. >=20 > [3] S. Singh, J.H. Kim, Y.G. Choi, Y.S. Roh, " Mobile multi-gateway=20 > support for IPv6 mobile ad hoc networks", draft-singh-manet-mmg-00.txt= ,=20 > Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, June 2004. >=20 >=20 >=20 > At 14:20 07/03/2007, you wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. >> >> http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf= -problem-statement-02.txt=20 >> >> >> Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to >> identify: >> >> - what is missing, and needs to be included? >> - what is in excess, and needs to be removed? >> - what is in the document, but is not entirely in the desired shape? >> - what is well addressed in the document? >> >> Such points must be discussed now on the Autoconf mailing list to=20 >> prepare the forthcoming working group meeting in Prague. >> >> Cheers >> Emmanuel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Autoconf mailing list >> Autoconf@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >=20 > Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91 > Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica > E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion > Universidad de Malaga > Campus Universitario de Teatinos > 29071 Malaga, Spain >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 09:20:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPfxq-0006kc-OJ; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:20:58 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPfxo-0006j8-2K; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:20:56 -0500 Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPfxm-00028q-Kw; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:20:56 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (ras75-3-82-226-221-97.fbx.proxad.net [82.226.221.97]) (authenticated bits=0) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l29EKrHl011233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:20:53 +0100 Message-ID: <45F16D43.7010501@inria.fr> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:20:51 +0100 From: Emmanuel Baccelli User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <45F151B2.3030201@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <45F151B2.3030201@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45F16D45.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by discorde.inria.fr id l29EKrHl011233 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 Cc: manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Alex, Alexandru Petrescu a =E9crit : > Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. >> >> http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf= -problem-statement-02.txt=20 >> >> >> >> >> Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to identify: >> >> - what is missing, and needs to be included? - what is in excess, and >> needs to be removed? - what is in the document, but is not entirely >> in the desired shape? - what is well addressed in the document? >=20 > Do you think autoconf prefix autoconfiguration problem could accommodat= e > a problem whereby two Mobile Routers serving Local Fixed Nodes need to > exchange routing table entries? >=20 As of yet, Autoconf is focussing on IPv6 address and prefix=20 configuration. So other types of configuration is out of scope for now. Emmanuel > The scenario is a scene where two vehicles arrives and stay put for a > while. In each vehicle there's a fixed Mobile Router. EAch additional > computer is fixed in each vehicle and is called a Local Fixed Node (eg = a > laptop, or car engine control, or pda - all fixed in each vehicle). >=20 > Each Mobile Router has an egress interface, whose radio is receivable > from outside the vehicle. The radio in the vehicle is not visible > outside, especially when all doors are shut close. >=20 > There's no Internet connectivity at this scene, no WMAN infrastructure, > all communication is built locally. >=20 > With this setting, although one LFN in one vehicle could talk to the > other LFN in another vehicle (via the external inter-vehicular radio), > the two MRs currently have no means to exchange routing information > (other than OSPF or DHCP, which require pre-configuration of the other > peer prior to arriving at the scene). >=20 > What do you think about this problem? Could it be accommodated > somewhere in the AUTOCONF Problem Statement draft? >=20 > The solutions that _may_ be pertinent to this problem are Neighbour > Discovery extensions, specifically putting prefixes in RA or in NA. > There are about two drafts in this space, I can refer them if interest = is. >=20 > Is an AUTOCONF or MANET existing solution draft addressing this problem > already? >=20 > Thanks in advance, >=20 > Alex >=20 >=20 > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email=20 > ______________________________________________________________________ >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 09:41:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPgHI-0005Nj-VE; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:41:04 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPgHI-0005NY-3B; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:41:04 -0500 Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com ([216.82.253.51]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPgHF-000538-N0; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:41:04 -0500 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1173451259!1027685!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.10] Received: (qmail 29160 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2007 14:41:00 -0000 Received: from motgate6.mot.com (HELO motgate.mot.com) (129.188.136.10) by server-2.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2007 14:41:00 -0000 Received: from il06exr04.mot.com (il06exr04.mot.com [129.188.137.134]) by motgate.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id l29EeptP016737; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:40:59 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.161.201.117] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by il06exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l29Ee1ZD024586; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 08:40:02 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <45F171BB.204@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:39:55 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Emmanuel Baccelli Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <45F151B2.3030201@gmail.com> <45F16D43.7010501@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <45F16D43.7010501@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: > Alex, > > > Alexandru Petrescu a écrit : >> Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. >>> >>> http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf-problem-statement-02.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to identify: >>> >>> - what is missing, and needs to be included? - what is in excess, and >>> needs to be removed? - what is in the document, but is not entirely >>> in the desired shape? - what is well addressed in the document? >> >> Do you think autoconf prefix autoconfiguration problem could accommodate >> a problem whereby two Mobile Routers serving Local Fixed Nodes need to >> exchange routing table entries? >> > > As of yet, Autoconf is focussing on IPv6 address and prefix > configuration. So other types of configuration is out of scope for now. I see, thanks for the info. When you say 'configuration', you mean the means by which a node assigns an address (or a prefix) for itself? For example DHCP and SLAAC would be address configuration mechanisms. Is this kind of address assignment that you refer to when you say AUTOCONF is focusing on IPv6 address and prefix configuration? And is it that prefixes exchanged by a protocol (and to be installed in one's routing table), thus not _assigned_ to a node, like OSPF would do, are out of scope in AUTOCONF? Thanks, Alex PS: Regardless of my problem proposal where prefixes are exchanged between routers (and not assigned to a router), I think self-derivation of an address (like IPv6 EUI64 or other link-layers and CGA/HBA) and DHCP prefix delegation should be mentioned in the problement statement draft because they're all means of assigning addresses and prefixes to nodes. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 14:37:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPktz-0002Bc-AQ; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:37:19 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPktx-0002BO-W7 for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:37:18 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.136.123]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPktv-0004hk-EL for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:37:17 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744DEAD144; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:37:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from acorde (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5974CA9A91; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:37:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [Autoconf] About an update of draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: Alicia =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Trivi=F1o?= In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20070309100947.03d02a48@dte.uma.es> References: <1173266107.22733.62.camel@acorde> <7.0.1.0.0.20070309100947.03d02a48@dte.uma.es> Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:37:10 +0100 Message-Id: <1173469030.4677.13.camel@acorde> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a2c12dacc0736f14d6b540e805505a86 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1910496137==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --===============1910496137== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-f/d8azzn+otRfS9/SwrX" --=-f/d8azzn+otRfS9/SwrX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Alicia, Most probably, I'll update the I-D within the next few weeks. Kind Regards, Carlos J. El vie, 09-03-2007 a las 10:15 +0100, Alicia Trivi=F1o escribi=F3: > Hi Carlos: >=20 > I think your survey draft is very useful as it=20 > explains the main proposals for address=20 > autoconfiguration in MANETs. However, some other=20 > recent mechanisms should also be included. For instance: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf/draft-jeong-autoconf-pdad-on-demand-00.= txt >=20 > So, I think the updated version could be helpful. >=20 > Best Regards, >=20 >=20 > At 12:15 07/03/2007, you wrote: > >Hi all, > > > > I was thinking in updating my autoconf solutions survey draft [= 1] > >and submit a -01 version. I'd like to know whether you think it would be > >helpful for the WG discussions or not. If the WG thinks it may help, I > >can update the draft in a few weeks. > > > > Thanks for your opinion on that. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Carlos > > > >[1] "Survey of IP address autoconfiguration mechanisms for MANETs" > > Carlos J. Bernardos, Mar=EDa Calder=F3n > >http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/papers/draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey-= 00.txt > >-- > >=A1AS=D3CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws > > Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net > > GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Autoconf mailing list > >Autoconf@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >=20 > Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91 > Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica > E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion > Universidad de Malaga > Campus Universitario de Teatinos > 29071 Malaga, Spain >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --=20 =A1AS=D3CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 --=-f/d8azzn+otRfS9/SwrX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBF8bdl7QxZUr+JuXQRAtL4AKDDrYffJ8OppB0m8Mq97/CpJ9YWWACggVFK NY2bMvV7g56mNnAuEBCsiwg= =Egto -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-f/d8azzn+otRfS9/SwrX-- --===============1910496137== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --===============1910496137==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 16:49:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPmxo-0002s0-KJ; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:49:24 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPmxn-0002pB-DJ for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:49:23 -0500 Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.83.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPmxj-00046u-30 for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:49:23 -0500 Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id l29Lmx2Y025500; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:48:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from SEXTANT [132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.12.43) with SMTP id M2007030916485923537 ; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:48:59 -0500 From: "Joe Macker" To: , "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Alicia_Trivi=F1o'?=" References: <1173266107.22733.62.camel@acorde><7.0.1.0.0.20070309100947.03d02a48@dte.uma.es> <1173469030.4677.13.camel@acorde> Subject: RE: [Autoconf] About an update ofdraft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:48:56 -0500 Message-ID: <00d001c76294$bcdd2580$165cfa84@SEXTANT> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acdigof7OEH2ADZdT+uivvuW6YzeCQACt0NQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-reply-to: <1173469030.4677.13.camel@acorde> X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 37af5f8fbf6f013c5b771388e24b09e7 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org A quick comment unless I missed it in the first reading. While not a = general approach for merging/fragmenting there have been MANET autoconfiguration approaches using dhcp relay and distributed RADV with for simple stub connected MANET deployments. These are pragmatic approaches and should = be mentioned along with their respective deployment limitations. The best practices are a little different in that you don=92t want to assign the = pooled address prefix to the interface but rather a set of subprefixes possibly = a host specific prefix. DHCP configurations support this with little or = no protocol modifications (e.g., pass specific prefix with the assignment). I am not suggesting this as the general approach, but wanted to point = out this has been done for working stub MANET networks and perhaps should be mentioned in a comprehensive survey of existing methods. There may be = other references but there are some example uses and discussion in: Macker, J.P. and M.S. Corson, "Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Routing = Technology for Dynamic, Wireless Networks", S. Basagni et al., eds., Mobile Ad Hoc Networking, Chapter 9, IEEE Press, 2003. >-----Original Message----- >From: Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano [mailto:cjbc@it.uc3m.es]=20 >Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:37 PM >To: Alicia Trivi=F1o >Cc: autoconf@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Autoconf] About an update=20 >ofdraft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey > >Thanks Alicia, > >Most probably, I'll update the I-D within the next few weeks. > >Kind Regards, > >Carlos J. > >El vie, 09-03-2007 a las 10:15 +0100, Alicia Trivi=F1o escribi=F3: >> Hi Carlos: >>=20 >> I think your survey draft is very useful as it explains the main=20 >> proposals for address autoconfiguration in MANETs. However,=20 >some other=20 >> recent mechanisms should also be included. For instance: >>=20 >>=20 >http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf/draft-jeong-autoconf-pdad-on-demand- >> 00.txt >>=20 >> So, I think the updated version could be helpful. >>=20 >> Best Regards, >>=20 >>=20 >> At 12:15 07/03/2007, you wrote: >> >Hi all, >> > >> > I was thinking in updating my autoconf solutions survey=20 >> >draft [1] and submit a -01 version. I'd like to know whether you=20 >> >think it would be helpful for the WG discussions or not. If the WG=20 >> >thinks it may help, I can update the draft in a few weeks. >> > >> > Thanks for your opinion on that. >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > >> > Carlos >> > >> >[1] "Survey of IP address autoconfiguration mechanisms for MANETs" >> > Carlos J. Bernardos, Mar=EDa Calder=F3n=20 >>=20 >>http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/papers/draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-surv >> >ey-00.txt >> >-- >> >=A1AS=D3CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws >> > Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net >> > GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Autoconf mailing list >> >Autoconf@ietf.org >> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >>=20 >> Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91 >> Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica >> E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion >> Universidad de Malaga >> Campus Universitario de Teatinos >> 29071 Malaga, Spain >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Autoconf mailing list >> Autoconf@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >-- >=A1AS=D3CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws > Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net > GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 > > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 23:18:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPt1X-0000C7-S1; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:17:39 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPt1X-0000C2-53 for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:17:39 -0500 Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp ([2001:200:0:8803:203:47ff:fedf:73a6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPt1V-0007rj-Ij for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:17:39 -0500 Received: from [192.51.213.205] (unknown [192.51.213.205]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB2F4D905; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:17:36 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <45F23158.4000001@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:17:28 +0900 From: Jean Lorchat User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <45F151B2.3030201@gmail.com> <45F15983.9050009@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <45F15CFA.1070605@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <45F15CFA.1070605@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Alex, >> If MANET is running on the (egress) radio interface, then OLSRv2 can >> solve the problem (by using the "Local Attached Network Set", and >> putting information about these prefixes in the periodic TC messages. >> >> > What's the dst address of periodic TC messages? Is that a multicast > address? A unicast address? The destination address is called ALL-MANET-NEIGHBORS and is "a well-known link local multicast address" to be assigned (see NHDP draft, section 13.1) > If multicast - then somehow the receiving router must express interest > in this multicast group before receiving a TC from another router, no? Since it is the multicast address for all MANET neighbors, if the router is participating in the MANET, it has already subscribed to this group. > I think sometimes it's useful to solicit for a TC, especially when one > needs a quick response and the sender's timer is too long. I can see your point. But since we are talking about OLSRv2 here, and given it is a proactive protocol, I don't know if there is such a mechanism as solicitation for TCs. Maybe an OLSRv2 author could provide more insight ? > Can OLSRv2 on one MR realize somehow that all other Mobile Routers have > left the scene and no longer send TC messages when it's alone? Is there > a form of unreachability detection or test or similar mechanism? OLSR's Proactive nature warrants that if another MR is reachable, then the information is available locally (in a set of received information). Of course this information has a validity time associated that is taking care of the unreachability detection. In any case, MRs must advertise their prefix (even if no one is interested). This said, I highly recommend reading OLSRv2 and related drafts (i.e. packetbb, nhdp, olsrv2) ;-) Happy reading, Jean _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Sat Mar 10 04:57:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPyKb-0000gC-Np; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:57:41 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPyKb-0000g4-2t for autoconf@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:57:41 -0500 Received: from cartero2.sci.uma.es ([150.214.47.226]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPyKW-0005Lb-2L for autoconf@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:57:41 -0500 Received: from correo2.uma.es (vesta2.sci.uma.es [150.214.40.7]) by cartero2.sci.uma.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id D225C13C744 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:57:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from pc-0d38f6d9d1eb.dte.uma.es (pc43te.dte.uma.es [150.214.59.43]) by correo2.uma.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950EE8005A for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:57:28 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20070310104712.03e681b8@dte.uma.es> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:57:28 +0100 To: autoconf@ietf.org From: Alicia =?iso-8859-1?Q?Trivi=F1o?= Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement In-Reply-To: <45F16C10.2080507@inria.fr> References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <7.0.1.0.0.20070309110110.03d044f8@dte.uma.es> <45F16C10.2080507@inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 24d000849df6f171c5ec1cca2ea21b82 X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1986672859==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --===============1986672859== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_439760750==.ALT" --=====================_439760750==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I did not explain myself clearly in my previous=20 mail. I think that in the scenarii represented in=20 Fig.1 (multihop connected MANETs), there could be=20 two different types of gateways: * Dedicated gateway: A specific device that is=20 previously installed in those scenarii where=20 MANETs are expected to be integrated into the Internet [1] [2]. * Non-dedicated Gateway: A Mobile Router in the=20 MANET temporally and dynamically configures=20 itself in order to behave as the Internet Gateway [3]. Best Regards, ----- MR1...MR3 / . +-------------+ +------------+ / . | | p2p | |/ . | ISP Edge | Link | Internet | . | Router +---------+ gateway |\ . | | | | \ . +-------------+ +------------+ \----- MR2 Fig. 1. Connected MANET router topology At 15:15 09/03/2007, you wrote: >Alicia, > >the problem statement makes the difference=20 >between 2 categorie of scenarii: (i) connected=20 >MANET and (ii) standalone MANET. Conceptually,=20 >the difference made is whether or not you may=20 >have access (possibly through several hops) to a=20 >"traditional" server. So the sub-scenarii you=20 >are pointing out are covered, since they address=20 >adding more hops to reach the Edge Router. > >Emmanuel > >Alicia Trivi=F1o a =E9crit : >>Hi all, >>I think that there is one issue that has not=20 >>been considered in the draft. Analyzing the=20 >>proposed mechanisms for integrating MANET into=20 >>the Internet, there are two possible implementations for the Internet= Gateway: >>- previously installed in those scenarii where=20 >>MANET are expected to be connected to the Internet [1] [2]. >>- non-dedicated gateways. In those scenarii=20 >>where only a ISP Edge Router is installed, a=20 >>MANET node can autoconfigure itself to act as the Internet Gateway [3]. >>Maybe it will be interesting to include this point. >>Best Regards, >>Alicia Trivi=F1o >> >>[1] R. Wakikawa, J. T. Malinen, C. E. Perkins,=20 >>A. Nilsson, A. J. Tuominen, =93Global=20 >>Connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks=94,=20 >>draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt, Internet=20 >>Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, March, 2006 >>[2] C. Jelger, T. Noel, A. Frey, "Gateway and=20 >>address autoconfiguration for IPv6 adhoc=20 >>networks",=20 >>draft-jelger-manet-gateway-autoconf-v6-02.txt,=20 >>Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, April 2004. >>[3] S. Singh, J.H. Kim, Y.G. Choi, Y.S. Roh, "=20 >>Mobile multi-gateway support for IPv6 mobile ad=20 >>hoc networks", draft-singh-manet-mmg-00.txt,=20 >>Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, June 2004. >> >>At 14:20 07/03/2007, you wrote: >>>Hi all, >>> >>>the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. >>> >>>http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf-pr= oblem-statement-02.txt=20 >>> >>> >>>Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to >>>identify: >>> >>> - what is missing, and needs to be included? >>> - what is in excess, and needs to be removed? >>> - what is in the document, but is not entirely in the desired shape? >>> - what is well addressed in the document? >>> >>>Such points must be discussed now on the=20 >>>Autoconf mailing list to prepare the=20 >>>forthcoming working group meeting in Prague. >>> >>>Cheers >>>Emmanuel >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Autoconf mailing list >>>Autoconf@ietf.org >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >>Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91 >>Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica >>E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion >>Universidad de Malaga >>Campus Universitario de Teatinos >>29071 Malaga, Spain >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Autoconf mailing list >>Autoconf@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > >_______________________________________________ >Autoconf mailing list >Autoconf@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91 Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion Universidad de Malaga Campus Universitario de Teatinos 29071 Malaga, Spain --=====================_439760750==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,

I did not explain myself clearly in my previous mail. I think that in the scenarii represented in Fig.1 (multihop connected MANETs), there could be two different types of gateways:

* Dedicated gateway: A specific device that is previously installed in those scenarii where MANETs are expected to be integrated into the Internet [1] [2].

* Non-dedicated Gateway: A Mobile Router in the MANET temporally and dynamically configures itself in order to behave as the Internet Gateway [3].

Best Regards,

            &nbs=
p;            &n=
bsp;            =
            &nbs=
p;   
----- MR1...MR3
            &nbs=
p;            &n=
bsp;            =
            &nbs=
p;  
/      .
            &nbs=
p;
+-------------+        
+------------+ /       .
            &nbs=
p;
|            
|   p2p  
|           
|/        .
            &nbs=
p;
|  ISP Edge   |   Link  |
Internet   |         .
            &nbs=
p;
|   Router    +---------+ 
gateway   |\        .
            &nbs=
p;
|            
|        
|            |
\       .
            &nbs=
p;
+-------------+        
+------------+  \----- MR2

            &nbs=
p;         
Fig. 1. Connected MANET router topology
At 15:15 09/03/2007, you wrote:
Alicia,

the problem statement makes the difference between 2 categorie of scenarii: (i) connected MANET and (ii) standalone MANET. Conceptually, the difference made is whether or not you may have access (possibly through several hops) to a "traditional" server. So the sub-scenarii you are pointing out are covered, since they address adding more hops to reach the Edge Router.

Emmanuel

Alicia Trivi=F1o a =E9crit :
Hi all,
I think that there is one issue that has not been considered in the draft. Analyzing the proposed mechanisms for integrating MANET into the Internet, there are two possible implementations for the Internet Gateway:
- previously installed in those scenarii where MANET are expected to be connected to the Internet [1] [2].
- non-dedicated gateways. In those scenarii where only a ISP Edge Router is installed, a MANET node can autoconfigure itself to act as the Internet Gateway [3].
Maybe it will be interesting to include this point.
Best Regards,
Alicia Trivi=F1o

[1] R. Wakikawa, J. T. Malinen, C. E. Perkins, A. Nilsson, A. J. Tuominen, =93Global Connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks=94, draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt, Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, March, 2006
[2] C. Jelger, T. Noel, A. Frey, "Gateway and address autoconfiguration for IPv6 adhoc networks", draft-jelger-manet-gateway-autoconf-v6-02.txt, Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, April 2004.
[3]  S. Singh, J.H. Kim, Y.G. Choi, Y.S. Roh, " Mobile multi-gateway support for IPv6 mobile ad hoc networks",  draft-singh-manet-mmg-00.txt, Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, June 2004.

At 14:20 07/03/2007, you wrote:
Hi all,

the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated.

http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf-probl= em-statement-02.txt

Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to
identify:

  - what is missing, and needs to be included?
  - what is in excess, and needs to be removed?
  - what is in the document, but is not entirely in the desired shape?
  - what is well addressed in the document?

Such points must be discussed now on the Autoconf mailing list to prepare the forthcoming working group meeting in Prague.

Cheers
Emmanuel

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
Alicia Trivi=F1o           &= nbsp;            = ;       / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91
Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica
E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion
Universidad de Malaga
Campus Universitario de Teatinos
29071 Malaga, Spain

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

Alicia Trivi=F1o           &= nbsp;            = ;       / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91
Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica
E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion
Universidad de Malaga
Campus Universitario de Teatinos
29071 Malaga, Spain

--=====================_439760750==.ALT-- --===============1986672859== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --===============1986672859==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Sat Mar 10 10:30:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQ3W7-0005OS-QY; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:29:55 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQ3W6-0005ON-P6 for autoconf@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:29:54 -0500 Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.179]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQ3W4-0001RX-Fm for autoconf@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:29:54 -0500 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1173540591!23522902!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 29092 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2007 15:29:51 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-13.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2007 15:29:51 -0000 Received: from il06exr03.mot.com (il06exr03.mot.com [129.188.137.133]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id l2AFTpm3026221; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:29:51 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.129.41.111] ([10.129.41.111]) by il06exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l2AFTnNB023104; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:29:50 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <45F2CEED.3070806@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:29:49 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean Lorchat Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <45F151B2.3030201@gmail.com> <45F15983.9050009@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <45F15CFA.1070605@gmail.com> <45F23158.4000001@sfc.wide.ad.jp> In-Reply-To: <45F23158.4000001@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Jean Lorchat wrote: > Hi Alex, > >>> If MANET is running on the (egress) radio interface, then OLSRv2 can >>> solve the problem (by using the "Local Attached Network Set", and >>> putting information about these prefixes in the periodic TC messages. >>> >>> >> What's the dst address of periodic TC messages? Is that a multicast >> address? A unicast address? > > The destination address is called ALL-MANET-NEIGHBORS and is "a > well-known link local multicast address" to be assigned (see NHDP draft, > section 13.1) Makes sense. >> If multicast - then somehow the receiving router must express interest >> in this multicast group before receiving a TC from another router, no? > > Since it is the multicast address for all MANET neighbors, if the router > is participating in the MANET, it has already subscribed to this group. Right, but a router has two ways of joining a group, either with MLD or with a multicast routing protocol. I have to figure out which OLSRv2 uses. >> I think sometimes it's useful to solicit for a TC, especially when one >> needs a quick response and the sender's timer is too long. > > I can see your point. But since we are talking about OLSRv2 here, and > given it is a proactive protocol, I don't know if there is such a > mechanism as solicitation for TCs. Maybe an OLSRv2 author could provide > more insight ? > >> Can OLSRv2 on one MR realize somehow that all other Mobile Routers have >> left the scene and no longer send TC messages when it's alone? Is there >> a form of unreachability detection or test or similar mechanism? > > OLSR's Proactive nature warrants that if another MR is reachable, then > the information is available locally (in a set of received information). > Of course this information has a validity time associated that is taking > care of the unreachability detection. In any case, MRs must advertise > their prefix (even if no one is interested). > > This said, I highly recommend reading OLSRv2 and related drafts (i.e. > packetbb, nhdp, olsrv2) ;-) Thanks, I'll have to read that. I understand OLSRv2 has a proactive nature. If this nature forbids it to solicit TC then makes sense. I think (after looking at AUTOCONF WG Charter) that discussing OLSRv2 shouldn't happen here so I'll post OSLRv2 questions in the MANET WG later. Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 05:54:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQhER-0005JF-Oy; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:54:19 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQhEQ-0005J6-WB; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:54:19 -0400 Received: from smtp1.bae.co.uk ([20.133.0.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQhEP-0000lq-Kn; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:54:18 -0400 Received: from smtpc.greenlnk.net (smtpc.greenlnk.net [10.15.160.220]) by smtp1.bae.co.uk (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id l2C9s3Hq029641; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:54:03 GMT Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET (glkas0002.greenlnk.net [10.15.184.52]) by smtpc.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id l2C9s1Cd009784; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:54:01 GMT Received: from glkms0002.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.2]) by glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:54:06 -0000 Received: from glkms2122.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.26]) by glkms0002.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:54:06 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [manet] Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:54:05 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [manet] Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement Thread-Index: AcdiTI+Jk+H6Zu9zQsCHpapZ9KG/+ACPoOug From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" To: "Alexandru Petrescu" , "Jean Lorchat" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2007 09:54:06.0146 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F5CBA20:01C7648C] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, Thomas Clausen , manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org > Can OLSRv2 on one MR realize somehow that all other Mobile Routers have > left the scene and no longer send TC messages when it's alone? Is there > a form of unreachability detection or test or similar mechanism? Typically TC messages (containing advertised neighbours) will cease when there are no neighbours to advertise. (Two caveats to that. First there may be a short period advertising an empty list, and second you may have neighbours, but no advertised neighbours, in which case they will cease earlier.) So far so good. However if sending TC messages solely to advertise a network conection, then currently there isn't actually an end condition to that specified. It would be straightforward however to add a condition that a node MAY or SHOULD (more thought needed on which is better, I can see arguments both ways) stop sending TC messages when (or shortly after) it recognises that it has no neighbours (probably no symmetric 1-hop neighbours, but again needs thought). But you don't win much that way, you need to keep sending HELLO messages, and that's the greater overhead (they should be more frequent). ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 06:02:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQhMJ-0005sV-Ty; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:02:27 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQhMI-0005sL-GH; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:02:26 -0400 Received: from smtp1.bae.co.uk ([20.133.0.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQhMH-0001l8-4V; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:02:26 -0400 Received: from smtpc.greenlnk.net (smtpc.greenlnk.net [10.15.160.220]) by smtp1.bae.co.uk (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id l2CA2NVO005168; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:02:23 GMT Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET (glkas0002.greenlnk.net [10.15.184.52]) by smtpc.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id l2CA2LSJ016749; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:02:21 GMT Received: from glkms0002.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.2]) by glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:02:26 -0000 Received: from glkms2122.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.26]) by glkms0002.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:02:26 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:02:25 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement Thread-Index: AcdiSo+i8TmKnXdkS+61uxqWw/GFKQCQoWXQ From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" To: "Jean Lorchat" , "Alexandru Petrescu" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2007 10:02:26.0474 (UTC) FILETIME=[8994B8A0:01C7648D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org From: Jean Lorchat [mailto:lorchat@sfc.wide.ad.jp]=20 >OLSR(v1) has support for "Host Network Attachment" >but I think they only accomodate IPv4 prefixes. OLSRv1 (RFC 3626) has a "for IPv6 replace IPv4 addresses by IPv6 addresses" note. Interpreted strictly it actually means that IPv6 HNA addresses have 128 bit address masks. At least some implementers have replaced this by a 32 bit prefix length (or 8 bits plus 24 bits reserved) as OLSRv1 is 32 bit word aligned, but it means there is a compatibility issue. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 06:35:54 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQhsc-0002MU-Jq; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:35:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQhsc-0002Hu-2t for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:35:50 -0400 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.136.123]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQhsX-0005ht-FA for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:35:50 -0400 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C72AA6D4; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:35:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from acorde (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A1EAA4B1; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:35:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: RE: [Autoconf] About an update ofdraft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: Joe Macker In-Reply-To: <00d001c76294$bcdd2580$165cfa84@SEXTANT> References: <1173266107.22733.62.camel@acorde> <7.0.1.0.0.20070309100947.03d02a48@dte.uma.es> <1173469030.4677.13.camel@acorde> <00d001c76294$bcdd2580$165cfa84@SEXTANT> Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:35:37 +0100 Message-Id: <1173695737.5509.9.camel@acorde> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, 'Alicia =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Trivi=F1o=27?= X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1959715560==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --===============1959715560== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QI4uzAgAVcYZYEprthMf" --=-QI4uzAgAVcYZYEprthMf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Joe, El vie, 09-03-2007 a las 16:48 -0500, Joe Macker escribi=C3=B3: > A quick comment unless I missed it in the first reading. While not a gene= ral > approach for merging/fragmenting there have been MANET autoconfiguration > approaches using dhcp relay and distributed RADV with for simple stub > connected MANET deployments. These are pragmatic approaches and should b= e > mentioned along with their respective deployment limitations. The best > practices are a little different in that you don=E2=80=99t want to assign= the pooled > address prefix to the interface but rather a set of subprefixes possibly = a > host specific prefix. DHCP configurations support this with little or no > protocol modifications (e.g., pass specific prefix with the assignment). >=20 > I am not suggesting this as the general approach, but wanted to point out > this has been done for working stub MANET networks and perhaps should be > mentioned in a comprehensive survey of existing methods. There may be ot= her > references but there are some example uses and discussion in: I agree with you, and I think this kind of approach should be also included in the survey. The first version was an (incomplete) vision of the solutions that were there one year ago. My idea is to update the draft with the solution I missed and with the new ones that have been proposed so far (some of them as a result of the discussions within the WG). Kind Regards, Carlos >=20 > Macker, J.P. and M.S. Corson, "Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Routing Technology > for Dynamic, Wireless Networks", S. Basagni et al., eds., Mobile Ad Hoc > Networking, Chapter 9, IEEE Press, 2003. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano [mailto:cjbc@it.uc3m.es]=20 > >Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:37 PM > >To: Alicia Trivi=C3=B1o > >Cc: autoconf@ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [Autoconf] About an update=20 > >ofdraft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey > > > >Thanks Alicia, > > > >Most probably, I'll update the I-D within the next few weeks. > > > >Kind Regards, > > > >Carlos J. > > > >El vie, 09-03-2007 a las 10:15 +0100, Alicia Trivi=C3=B1o escribi=C3=B3: > >> Hi Carlos: > >>=20 > >> I think your survey draft is very useful as it explains the main=20 > >> proposals for address autoconfiguration in MANETs. However,=20 > >some other=20 > >> recent mechanisms should also be included. For instance: > >>=20 > >>=20 > >http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf/draft-jeong-autoconf-pdad-on-demand- > >> 00.txt > >>=20 > >> So, I think the updated version could be helpful. > >>=20 > >> Best Regards, > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> At 12:15 07/03/2007, you wrote: > >> >Hi all, > >> > > >> > I was thinking in updating my autoconf solutions survey=20 > >> >draft [1] and submit a -01 version. I'd like to know whether you=20 > >> >think it would be helpful for the WG discussions or not. If the WG=20 > >> >thinks it may help, I can update the draft in a few weeks. > >> > > >> > Thanks for your opinion on that. > >> > > >> > Kind Regards, > >> > > >> > Carlos > >> > > >> >[1] "Survey of IP address autoconfiguration mechanisms for MANETs" > >> > Carlos J. Bernardos, Mar=C3=ADa Calder=C3=B3n=20 > >>=20 > >>http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/papers/draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-surv > >> >ey-00.txt > >> >-- > >> >=C2=A1AS=C3=93CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.w= s > >> > Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net > >> > GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >Autoconf mailing list > >> >Autoconf@ietf.org > >> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > >>=20 > >> Alicia Trivi=C3=B1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.= 91 > >> Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica > >> E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion > >> Universidad de Malaga > >> Campus Universitario de Teatinos > >> 29071 Malaga, Spain > >>=20 > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Autoconf mailing list > >> Autoconf@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > >-- > >=C2=A1AS=C3=93CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws > > Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net > > GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 > > > > >=20 >=20 --=20 =C2=A1AS=C3=93CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 --=-QI4uzAgAVcYZYEprthMf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBF9Sz57QxZUr+JuXQRAqIlAJ9U1BtMDGtudWYFIXUZSoz+se6bBgCgimC2 xY7efsFq+nv/QT0EHGMHU3M= =mMTi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-QI4uzAgAVcYZYEprthMf-- --===============1959715560== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --===============1959715560==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 06:53:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQi9d-0007a0-Lb; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:53:25 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQi9c-0007Zv-Dr for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:53:24 -0400 Received: from mailout2.samsung.com ([203.254.224.25]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQi9a-0008Bp-DY for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:53:24 -0400 Received: from ep_mmp1 (mailout2.samsung.com [203.254.224.25]) by mailout2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JES003LVE8MCQ@mailout2.samsung.com> for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:53:10 +0900 (KST) Received: from Shubhranshu ([107.108.4.124]) by mmp1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0JES00K7YE8JEL@mmp1.samsung.com> for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:53:10 +0900 (KST) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:28:06 +0530 From: Shubhranshu To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Alicia_Trivi=F1o?= Message-id: <01d701c76495$51d81990$7c046c6b@sisodomain.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <7.0.1.0.0.20070309110110.03d044f8@dte.uma.es> <45F16C10.2080507@inria.fr> <7.0.1.0.0.20070310104712.03e681b8@dte.uma.es> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10dcc25e55b9b5f7d6ded516404bdc4c Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: [Autoconf] Re: Autoconf Problem Statement X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1213309120==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1213309120== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_3/a1EBSnLR3HbKx9EGy3HA)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_3/a1EBSnLR3HbKx9EGy3HA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable If are saying that the draft needs to point to the types of gateways=20 (mobile, fixed, single/multiple) and any related issues due to that then = I agree. As for example if the gateways are mobile/multiple then the = default gateway, routing header (as used in ref [3] that you mentioned) and the=20 advertised prefix may get invalidated with time. However, a dedicated = gateway=20 would provide a more stable route to the destination on the Internet. I = think=20 those points which relates to the Autoconf has been addressed in section = "Gateway Related Issues". Perhaps the draft could provide a bit more = detail ? - Shubhranshu ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Alicia Trivi=F1o=20 To: autoconf@ietf.org=20 Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement Hi all, I did not explain myself clearly in my previous mail. I think that in = the scenarii represented in Fig.1 (multihop connected MANETs), there = could be two different types of gateways: * Dedicated gateway: A specific device that is previously installed in = those scenarii where MANETs are expected to be integrated into the = Internet [1] [2].=20 * Non-dedicated Gateway: A Mobile Router in the MANET temporally and = dynamically configures itself in order to behave as the Internet Gateway = [3].=20 Best Regards, =20 ----- MR1...MR3 =20 / . =20 +-------------+ =20 +------------+ / . =20 | =20 | p2p =20 | =20 |/ . =20 | ISP Edge | Link | Internet | . =20 | Router +---------+=20 gateway |\ . =20 | =20 | =20 | | \ . =20 +-------------+ =20 +------------+ \----- MR2 =20 Fig. 1. Connected MANET router topology At 15:15 09/03/2007, you wrote: Alicia, the problem statement makes the difference between 2 categorie of = scenarii: (i) connected MANET and (ii) standalone MANET. Conceptually, = the difference made is whether or not you may have access (possibly = through several hops) to a "traditional" server. So the sub-scenarii you = are pointing out are covered, since they address adding more hops to = reach the Edge Router. Emmanuel Alicia Trivi=F1o a =E9crit : Hi all, I think that there is one issue that has not been considered in = the draft. Analyzing the proposed mechanisms for integrating MANET into = the Internet, there are two possible implementations for the Internet = Gateway: - previously installed in those scenarii where MANET are expected = to be connected to the Internet [1] [2]. - non-dedicated gateways. In those scenarii where only a ISP Edge = Router is installed, a MANET node can autoconfigure itself to act as the = Internet Gateway [3]. Maybe it will be interesting to include this point. Best Regards, Alicia Trivi=F1o [1] R. Wakikawa, J. T. Malinen, C. E. Perkins, A. Nilsson, A. J. = Tuominen, "Global Connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", = draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt, Internet Draft, Internet = Engineering Task Force, March, 2006 [2] C. Jelger, T. Noel, A. Frey, "Gateway and address = autoconfiguration for IPv6 adhoc networks", = draft-jelger-manet-gateway-autoconf-v6-02.txt, Internet Draft, Internet = Engineering Task Force, April 2004. [3] S. Singh, J.H. Kim, Y.G. Choi, Y.S. Roh, " Mobile = multi-gateway support for IPv6 mobile ad hoc networks", = draft-singh-manet-mmg-00.txt, Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task = Force, June 2004. At 14:20 07/03/2007, you wrote: Hi all, the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. = http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf-pr= oblem-statement-02.txt=20 Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to identify: - what is missing, and needs to be included? - what is in excess, and needs to be removed? - what is in the document, but is not entirely in the desired = shape? - what is well addressed in the document? Such points must be discussed now on the Autoconf mailing list = to prepare the forthcoming working group meeting in Prague. Cheers Emmanuel --Boundary_(ID_3/a1EBSnLR3HbKx9EGy3HA) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

If are saying that the draft = needs to point=20 to the types of gateways
(mobile, = fixed, single/multiple) and any=20 related issues due to that then
I agree. As for example if the gateways = are=20 mobile/multiple then the default
gateway, routing header (as used in ref = [3] that=20 you mentioned) and the
advertised prefix may get invalidated=20 with time. However, a = dedicated gateway 
would provide a more stable route = to the=20 destination on the Internet. I think
those points which relates to the=20 Autoconf has been addressed in section
"Gateway Related Issues". Perhaps = the draft could provide a bit more detail = ?
 
- Shubhranshu
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Alicia = Trivi=F1o
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 = 3:27=20 PM
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] = Autoconf Problem=20 Statement

Hi all,

I did = not explain=20 myself clearly in my previous mail. I think that in the scenarii = represented=20 in Fig.1 (multihop connected MANETs), there could be two different = types of=20 gateways:

* Dedicated gateway: A specific device that is = previously=20 installed in those scenarii where MANETs are expected to be integrated = into=20 the Internet [1] [2].

* Non-dedicated Gateway: A Mobile Router = in the=20 MANET temporally and dynamically configures itself in order to behave = as the=20 Internet Gateway [3].

Best = Regards,

        &nbs=
p;            =
;            =
            &=
nbsp;        
----- MR1...MR3
            &=
nbsp;           &n=
bsp;           &nb=
sp;           &nbs=
p;    
/      .
            &=
nbsp;
+-------------+        
+------------+ /       .
            &=
nbsp;
|            =

|   p2p  
|           
|/        .
            &=
nbsp;
|  ISP Edge   |   Link  |
Internet   |         .
            &=
nbsp;
|   Router    +---------+ 
gateway   |\        .
            &=
nbsp;
|            =

|        
|            |
\       .
            &=
nbsp;
+-------------+        
+------------+  \----- MR2

            &=
nbsp;         
Fig. 1. Connected MANET router topology
At 15:15 09/03/2007, you wrote:
Alicia,

the = problem=20 statement makes the difference between 2 categorie of scenarii: (i)=20 connected MANET and (ii) standalone MANET. Conceptually, the = difference made=20 is whether or not you may have access (possibly through several = hops) to a=20 "traditional" server. So the sub-scenarii you are pointing out are = covered,=20 since they address adding more hops to reach the Edge=20 Router.

Emmanuel

Alicia Trivi=F1o a =E9crit :
Hi all,
I think = that there=20 is one issue that has not been considered in the draft. Analyzing = the=20 proposed mechanisms for integrating MANET into the Internet, there = are two=20 possible implementations for the Internet Gateway:
- previously = installed in those scenarii where MANET are expected to be = connected to=20 the Internet [1] [2].
- non-dedicated gateways. In those = scenarii where=20 only a ISP Edge Router is installed, a MANET node can = autoconfigure itself=20 to act as the Internet Gateway [3].
Maybe it will be = interesting to=20 include this point.
Best Regards,
Alicia = Trivi=F1o

[1] R.=20 Wakikawa, J. T. Malinen, C. E. Perkins, A. Nilsson, A. J. = Tuominen,=20 =93Global Connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks=94,=20 draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt, Internet Draft, Internet = Engineering=20 Task Force, March, 2006
[2] C. Jelger, T. Noel, A. Frey, = "Gateway and=20 address autoconfiguration for IPv6 adhoc networks",=20 draft-jelger-manet-gateway-autoconf-v6-02.txt, Internet Draft, = Internet=20 Engineering Task Force, April 2004.
[3]  S. Singh, J.H. = Kim, Y.G.=20 Choi, Y.S. Roh, " Mobile multi-gateway support for IPv6 mobile ad = hoc=20 networks",  draft-singh-manet-mmg-00.txt, Internet Draft, = Internet=20 Engineering Task Force, June 2004.

At 14:20 07/03/2007, you = wrote:
Hi = all,

the MANET=20 autoconf problem statement has been updated.

http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-b= accelli-autoconf-problem-statement-02.txt=20

Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order=20 to
identify:

  - what is missing, and needs to be = included?
  - what is in excess, and needs to be=20 removed?
  - what is in the document, but is not = entirely in the=20 desired shape?
  - what is well addressed in the=20 document?

Such points must be discussed now on the = Autoconf=20 mailing list to prepare the forthcoming working group meeting in = = Prague.

Cheers
Emmanuel

--Boundary_(ID_3/a1EBSnLR3HbKx9EGy3HA)-- --===============1213309120== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --===============1213309120==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 07:10:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQiPx-00028f-ND; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:10:17 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQiPw-00022M-JJ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:10:16 -0400 Received: from mailout1.samsung.com ([203.254.224.24]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQiPv-0002Pw-5d; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:10:16 -0400 Received: from ep_mmp2 (mailout1.samsung.com [203.254.224.24]) by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JES00BRWF0XD6@mailout1.samsung.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:10:09 +0900 (KST) Received: from Shubhranshu ([107.108.4.124]) by mmp2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.17 (built Jun 23 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0JES000X2F0VU8@mmp2.samsung.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:10:09 +0900 (KST) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:45:06 +0530 From: Shubhranshu Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement To: Alexandru Petrescu Message-id: <020201c76497$b1a5f070$7c046c6b@sisodomain.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 Content-type: text/plain; reply-type=response; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <45F13BB9.6060807@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Alex, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandru Petrescu" > > I was wondering whether draft misses some aspects. > > While I agree the widespread address assignment solutions rfc2462 > stateless, rfc3315 DHCP and rfc2461 ND are not suited for MANET > environments, I think that only some existing _address_ assignment > mechanisms are listed while existing _prefix_ assignment mechanisms are > not listed. > > DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation is such a mechanism RFC3633. > > There exist other prefix assignment mechanisms that are currently in > draft shape, that could be relevant: > -Prefix Delegation for NEMOv6 Mobile Routers (based on Mobile IPv6 > allocation or on DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation: 2 drafts). > -ICMPv6 Redirect is not quite a prefix assignment, but its effects are > the inclusion in the routing table of a /128 next-hop. > -two personal proposal as extension to ND to assign prefixes. drafts, no > WG no BoF - see manemo@mobileip.jp. > -there may be others if one looks harder. Section 4.2 of the draft provides a brief text on prefix delegation, rfc 3633 although without specifically pointing to the RFC. Since you missed the point, it seems the text needs further elaboration. Other related drafts that you mentioned can be included as informative references but I think the Autoconf PS ID need not analyze them in its problem statement section. - Shubhranshu > > Address (not prefix) assignment is a much wider landscape with more > drafts/rfcs that are less widespread use and that are not DHCP nor SLAAC > (Stateless Address Auto Config), see Fast Mobile IPv6 EXPERIMENTAL RFC > and Fast Mobile IPv4 WG item in MIP4 WG. Auto-generation of addresses > (from EUI64 IEEE-802, or from other link's ID, or from other secret > material - CGA, HBA) exist as well, in various RFC or draft form. > > That said, I will post separately on other aspects. > > Thanks, > > Alex > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 08:45:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQjuB-0005HL-Fx; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:45:35 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQju8-0005GM-Uj; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:45:32 -0400 Received: from mailout1.samsung.com ([203.254.224.24]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQjpt-0000TE-E0; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:41:10 -0400 Received: from ep_mmp2 (mailout1.samsung.com [203.254.224.24]) by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JES00ATVJ8KXV@mailout1.samsung.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:41:08 +0900 (KST) Received: from Shubhranshu ([107.108.4.124]) by mmp2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.17 (built Jun 23 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0JES004RJJ8IQ5@mmp2.samsung.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:41:07 +0900 (KST) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:16:05 +0530 From: Shubhranshu To: Alexandru Petrescu Message-id: <022d01c764a4$676c8d90$7c046c6b@sisodomain.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 Content-type: text/plain; reply-type=response; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <45F151B2.3030201@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org Subject: [Autoconf] Re:Autoconf Problem Statement X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Please see inline comment. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandru Petrescu" > > Do you think autoconf prefix autoconfiguration problem could accommodate > a problem whereby two Mobile Routers serving Local Fixed Nodes need to > exchange routing table entries? > > The scenario is a scene where two vehicles arrives and stay put for a > while. In each vehicle there's a fixed Mobile Router. EAch additional > computer is fixed in each vehicle and is called a Local Fixed Node (eg a > laptop, or car engine control, or pda - all fixed in each vehicle). > > Each Mobile Router has an egress interface, whose radio is receivable > from outside the vehicle. The radio in the vehicle is not visible > outside, especially when all doors are shut close. > > There's no Internet connectivity at this scene, no WMAN infrastructure, > all communication is built locally. > > With this setting, although one LFN in one vehicle could talk to the > other LFN in another vehicle (via the external inter-vehicular radio), > the two MRs currently have no means to exchange routing information > (other than OSPF or DHCP, which require pre-configuration of the other > peer prior to arriving at the scene). > > What do you think about this problem? Could it be accommodated > somewhere in the AUTOCONF Problem Statement draft? > > The solutions that _may_ be pertinent to this problem are Neighbour > Discovery extensions, specifically putting prefixes in RA or in NA. > There are about two drafts in this space, I can refer them if interest is. > > Is an AUTOCONF or MANET existing solution draft addressing this problem > already? Yes, it would help to better understand if you could list those two drafts. Since in your scenario the two seperate car networks are connected via external inter-vehicular radio, it can be considered as a single MANET. Since it is a standalone MANET, I think It would be fine to allow these nodes to talk to each other using MANET local address or ULA. Nodes can then run routing protocols such as OLSRv2, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2 or DYMO draft-ietf-manet-dymo. - Shubhranshu _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 12:27:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQnN5-0002QV-E4; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:27:39 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQnN4-0002QQ-4n for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:27:38 -0400 Received: from mailf.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.233.32]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQnMr-0006DB-S1 for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:27:38 -0400 thread-index: Acdkw0/y6eECEhb1S+u6M+yHwjJyng== Received: from ptpxch010ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.240.53]) by mailf.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:27:22 +0100 Received: from ptpxch004ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.240.43]) by ptpxch010ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:27:22 +0100 Received: from [10.229.4.11] ([10.229.4.11]) by ptpxch004ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:27:21 +0100 Message-ID: <45F57F68.90004@telecomitalia.it> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2826 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:27:20 +0100 From: "Simone Ruffino" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: [Autoconf] About an update ofdraft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey References: <1173266107.22733.62.camel@acorde> <7.0.1.0.0.20070309100947.03d02a48@dte.uma.es> <1173469030.4677.13.camel@acorde> <00d001c76294$bcdd2580$165cfa84@SEXTANT> <1173695737.5509.9.camel@acorde> In-Reply-To: <1173695737.5509.9.camel@acorde> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2007 16:27:21.0310 (UTC) FILETIME=[4F2D07E0:01C764C3] X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: ec7c6dab5a62df223002ae71b5179d41 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Carlos, Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano wrote: > Hi Joe, > > El vie, 09-03-2007 a las 16:48 -0500, Joe Macker escribi=F3: > =20 >> A quick comment unless I missed it in the first reading. While not a = general >> approach for merging/fragmenting there have been MANET = autoconfiguration >> approaches using dhcp relay and distributed RADV with for simple stub >> connected MANET deployments. These are pragmatic approaches and = should be >> mentioned along with their respective deployment limitations. The = best >> practices are a little different in that you don=92t want to assign = the pooled >> address prefix to the interface but rather a set of subprefixes = possibly a >> host specific prefix. DHCP configurations support this with little = or no >> protocol modifications (e.g., pass specific prefix with the = assignment). >> >> I am not suggesting this as the general approach, but wanted to point = out >> this has been done for working stub MANET networks and perhaps should = be >> mentioned in a comprehensive survey of existing methods. There may = be other >> references but there are some example uses and discussion in: >> =20 > > I agree with you, and I think this kind of approach should be also > included in the survey. The first version was an (incomplete) vision = of > the solutions that were there one year ago. My idea is to update the > draft with the solution I missed and with the new ones that have been > proposed so far (some of them as a result of the discussions within = the > WG). > =20 I also think an update of your draft would be useful for the WG. I personally would like to understand if the different solutions support = the MANET architecture model described in draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch. = In particular, it would be good to know if they assume a multi-link=20 subnet model or if they are able to configure addresses and prefixes as=20 specified in the architecture draft. Thanks and regards, Simone > Kind Regards, > > Carlos > > =20 >> Macker, J.P. and M.S. Corson, "Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Routing = Technology >> for Dynamic, Wireless Networks", S. Basagni et al., eds., Mobile Ad = Hoc >> Networking, Chapter 9, IEEE Press, 2003. >> >> >> >> >> >> =20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano [mailto:cjbc@it.uc3m.es]=20 >>> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:37 PM >>> To: Alicia Trivi=F1o >>> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] About an update=20 >>> ofdraft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey >>> >>> Thanks Alicia, >>> >>> Most probably, I'll update the I-D within the next few weeks. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Carlos J. >>> >>> El vie, 09-03-2007 a las 10:15 +0100, Alicia Trivi=F1o escribi=F3: >>> =20 >>>> Hi Carlos: >>>> >>>> I think your survey draft is very useful as it explains the main=20 >>>> proposals for address autoconfiguration in MANETs. However,=20 >>>> =20 >>> some other=20 >>> =20 >>>> recent mechanisms should also be included. For instance: >>>> >>>> >>>> =20 >>> = http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf/draft-jeong-autoconf-pdad-on-demand- >>> =20 >>>> 00.txt >>>> >>>> So, I think the updated version could be helpful. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> At 12:15 07/03/2007, you wrote: >>>> =20 >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I was thinking in updating my autoconf solutions survey=20 >>>>> draft [1] and submit a -01 version. I'd like to know whether you=20 >>>>> think it would be helpful for the WG discussions or not. If the WG = >>>>> thinks it may help, I can update the draft in a few weeks. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your opinion on that. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Carlos >>>>> >>>>> [1] "Survey of IP address autoconfiguration mechanisms for MANETs" >>>>> Carlos J. Bernardos, Mar=EDa Calder=F3n=20 >>>>> =20 >>>> = http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/papers/draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-surv >>>> =20 >>>>> ey-00.txt >>>>> -- >>>>> =A1AS=D3CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws >>>>> Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net >>>>> GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Autoconf mailing list >>>>> Autoconf@ietf.org >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >>>>> =20 >>>> Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. = +34-95.213.71.91 >>>> Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica >>>> E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion >>>> Universidad de Malaga >>>> Campus Universitario de Teatinos >>>> 29071 Malaga, Spain >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Autoconf mailing list >>>> Autoconf@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >>>> =20 >>> -- >>> =A1AS=D3CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws >>> Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net >>> GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 >>> >>> >>> =20 >> =20 >> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Autoconf mailing list >> Autoconf@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >> =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons = above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the = message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is = prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the = message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to = webmaster@telecomitalia.it. Thank you www.telecomitalia.it -------------------------------------------------------------------- =20 _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 13:24:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQoG3-0000tv-52; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:24:27 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQoG1-0000tk-MQ for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:24:25 -0400 Received: from mailf.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.233.32]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQoFw-0005U2-Mv for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:24:25 -0400 thread-index: Acdky0THBsgLu081TZ+lq30xpdF88A== Received: from ptpxch007ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.240.50]) by mailf.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:24:19 +0100 Received: from PTPXCH029BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.240.46]) by ptpxch007ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:24:19 +0100 Received: from [10.229.4.11] ([10.229.4.11]) by PTPXCH029BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:24:19 +0100 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal Message-ID: <45F58CC3.6070701@telecomitalia.it> Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2826 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:24:19 +0100 From: "Simone Ruffino" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement References: <7.0.1.0.0.20070307085104.040bf850@dte.uma.es> <45EEBC36.6060001@inria.fr> <7.0.1.0.0.20070309110110.03d044f8@dte.uma.es> <45F16C10.2080507@inria.fr> <7.0.1.0.0.20070310104712.03e681b8@dte.uma.es> In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20070310104712.03e681b8@dte.uma.es> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2007 17:24:19.0102 (UTC) FILETIME=[4456B3E0:01C764CB] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 88b11fc64c1bfdb4425294ef5374ca07 X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Alicia, I think we included some statements for what I call "opportunistic=20 gateways" (for example, MANET routers that become gateways after they=20 activates a non-MANET interface to connect with an "outside" network) in = one of the first versions of the PS draft. We subsequently decided not to describe all the possible Gateway=20 variants, but, instead, to describe the two states a MANET can find=20 itself into: non-connected and connected. From the point of view of=20 autoconf, i.e. from the point of view of address assignment and prefix=20 delegation, it makes no difference, if the MANET is connected to the=20 Internet via a temporary highly-dynamic gateway or via a fixed managed=20 gateway. The requirements are in fact the same: the configuration process must=20 complete in a small amount of time and it must react to topological=20 changes as quickly as possible. Regs, Simone p.s. You could maybe find useful to also have a look at=20 draft-ruffino-manet-autoconf-multigw-03, which was designed with very=20 dynamic scenarios in mind, where gateways are mostly opportunistic.=20 Unfortunately, it still assumes a multi-link subnet model...:-(=20 Alicia Trivi=F1o wrote: > Hi all, > > I did not explain myself clearly in my previous mail. I think that in=20 > the scenarii represented in Fig.1 (multihop connected MANETs), there=20 > could be two different types of gateways: > > * Dedicated gateway: A specific device that is previously installed in = > those scenarii where MANETs are expected to be integrated into the=20 > Internet [1] [2]. > > * Non-dedicated Gateway: A Mobile Router in the MANET temporally and=20 > dynamically configures itself in order to behave as the Internet=20 > Gateway [3]. > > Best Regards, > > =20 > ----- MR1...MR3 > =20 > / . > =20 > +-------------+ =20 > +------------+ / . > =20 > | =20 > | p2p =20 > | =20 > |/ . > =20 > | ISP Edge | Link | > Internet | . > =20 > | Router +---------+=20 > gateway |\ . > =20 > | =20 > | =20 > | | > \ . > =20 > +-------------+ =20 > +------------+ \----- MR2 > > =20 > Fig. 1. Connected MANET router topology > > > > > =20 > At 15:15 09/03/2007, you wrote: >> Alicia, >> >> the problem statement makes the difference between 2 categorie of=20 >> scenarii: (i) connected MANET and (ii) standalone MANET.=20 >> Conceptually, the difference made is whether or not you may have=20 >> access (possibly through several hops) to a "traditional" server. So=20 >> the sub-scenarii you are pointing out are covered, since they address = >> adding more hops to reach the Edge Router. >> >> Emmanuel >> >> Alicia Trivi=F1o a =E9crit : >>> Hi all, >>> I think that there is one issue that has not been considered in the=20 >>> draft. Analyzing the proposed mechanisms for integrating MANET into=20 >>> the Internet, there are two possible implementations for the=20 >>> Internet Gateway: >>> - previously installed in those scenarii where MANET are expected to = >>> be connected to the Internet [1] [2]. >>> - non-dedicated gateways. In those scenarii where only a ISP Edge=20 >>> Router is installed, a MANET node can autoconfigure itself to act as = >>> the Internet Gateway [3]. >>> Maybe it will be interesting to include this point. >>> Best Regards, >>> Alicia Trivi=F1o >>> >>> [1] R. Wakikawa, J. T. Malinen, C. E. Perkins, A. Nilsson, A. J.=20 >>> Tuominen, =93Global Connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks=94, = >>> draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt, Internet Draft, Internet=20 >>> Engineering Task Force, March, 2006 >>> [2] C. Jelger, T. Noel, A. Frey, "Gateway and address=20 >>> autoconfiguration for IPv6 adhoc networks",=20 >>> draft-jelger-manet-gateway-autoconf-v6-02.txt, Internet Draft,=20 >>> Internet Engineering Task Force, April 2004. >>> [3] S. Singh, J.H. Kim, Y.G. Choi, Y.S. Roh, " Mobile multi-gateway=20 >>> support for IPv6 mobile ad hoc networks",=20 >>> draft-singh-manet-mmg-00.txt, Internet Draft, Internet Engineering=20 >>> Task Force, June 2004. >>> >>> At 14:20 07/03/2007, you wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> the MANET autoconf problem statement has been updated. >>>> >>>> = http://manetautoconf.online.fr/Blog/wp-content/draft-baccelli-autoconf-pr= oblem-statement-02.txt=20 >>>> >>>> >>>> Thourough reviewing from you is now needed in order to >>>> identify: >>>> >>>> - what is missing, and needs to be included? >>>> - what is in excess, and needs to be removed? >>>> - what is in the document, but is not entirely in the desired = shape? >>>> - what is well addressed in the document? >>>> >>>> Such points must be discussed now on the Autoconf mailing list to=20 >>>> prepare the forthcoming working group meeting in Prague. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Emmanuel >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Autoconf mailing list >>>> Autoconf@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >>> Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91 >>> Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica >>> E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion >>> Universidad de Malaga >>> Campus Universitario de Teatinos >>> 29071 Malaga, Spain >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Autoconf mailing list >>> Autoconf@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Autoconf mailing list >> Autoconf@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > > Alicia Trivi=F1o / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91 > Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica > E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion > Universidad de Malaga > Campus Universitario de Teatinos > 29071 Malaga, Spain > > = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons = above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the = message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is = prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the = message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to = webmaster@telecomitalia.it. Thank you www.telecomitalia.it -------------------------------------------------------------------- =20 _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 13 10:06:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HR7eN-0006Wg-Gx; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:06:51 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HR7eM-0006TH-Dv for autoconf@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:06:50 -0400 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.136.121]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HR7dy-0004WA-Er for autoconf@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:06:50 -0400 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0794F16FE89; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:06:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from acorde (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960D316FDBE; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:06:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [Autoconf] About an update ofdraft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: Simone Ruffino In-Reply-To: <45F57F68.90004@telecomitalia.it> References: <1173266107.22733.62.camel@acorde> <7.0.1.0.0.20070309100947.03d02a48@dte.uma.es> <1173469030.4677.13.camel@acorde> <00d001c76294$bcdd2580$165cfa84@SEXTANT> <1173695737.5509.9.camel@acorde> <45F57F68.90004@telecomitalia.it> Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:06:22 +0100 Message-Id: <1173794782.5509.113.camel@acorde> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 8a85b14f27c9dcbe0719e27d46abc1f8 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1241520284==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --===============1241520284== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-V8Ee5FL5U4FPKd96x6wn" --=-V8Ee5FL5U4FPKd96x6wn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Simone, El lun, 12-03-2007 a las 17:27 +0100, Simone Ruffino escribi=C3=B3: > Hi Carlos, >=20 > Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > > El vie, 09-03-2007 a las 16:48 -0500, Joe Macker escribi=C3=B3: > > =20 > >> A quick comment unless I missed it in the first reading. While not a g= eneral > >> approach for merging/fragmenting there have been MANET autoconfigurati= on > >> approaches using dhcp relay and distributed RADV with for simple stub > >> connected MANET deployments. These are pragmatic approaches and shoul= d be > >> mentioned along with their respective deployment limitations. The bes= t > >> practices are a little different in that you don=E2=80=99t want to ass= ign the pooled > >> address prefix to the interface but rather a set of subprefixes possib= ly a > >> host specific prefix. DHCP configurations support this with little or= no > >> protocol modifications (e.g., pass specific prefix with the assignment= ). > >> > >> I am not suggesting this as the general approach, but wanted to point = out > >> this has been done for working stub MANET networks and perhaps should = be > >> mentioned in a comprehensive survey of existing methods. There may be= other > >> references but there are some example uses and discussion in: > >> =20 > > > > I agree with you, and I think this kind of approach should be also > > included in the survey. The first version was an (incomplete) vision of > > the solutions that were there one year ago. My idea is to update the > > draft with the solution I missed and with the new ones that have been > > proposed so far (some of them as a result of the discussions within the > > WG). > > =20 >=20 > I also think an update of your draft would be useful for the WG. >=20 > I personally would like to understand if the different solutions support=20 > the MANET architecture model described in draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch.=20 > In particular, it would be good to know if they assume a multi-link=20 > subnet model or if they are able to configure addresses and prefixes as=20 > specified in the architecture draft. Yes, I agree that's a point that should be addressed in the survey. Thanks for the suggestion. Kind Regards, Carlos >=20 > Thanks and regards, > Simone >=20 >=20 > > Kind Regards, > > > > Carlos > > > > =20 > >> Macker, J.P. and M.S. Corson, "Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Routing Technol= ogy > >> for Dynamic, Wireless Networks", S. Basagni et al., eds., Mobile Ad Ho= c > >> Networking, Chapter 9, IEEE Press, 2003. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> =20 > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano [mailto:cjbc@it.uc3m.es]=20 > >>> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:37 PM > >>> To: Alicia Trivi=C3=B1o > >>> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] About an update=20 > >>> ofdraft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey > >>> > >>> Thanks Alicia, > >>> > >>> Most probably, I'll update the I-D within the next few weeks. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards, > >>> > >>> Carlos J. > >>> > >>> El vie, 09-03-2007 a las 10:15 +0100, Alicia Trivi=C3=B1o escribi=C3= =B3: > >>> =20 > >>>> Hi Carlos: > >>>> > >>>> I think your survey draft is very useful as it explains the main=20 > >>>> proposals for address autoconfiguration in MANETs. However,=20 > >>>> =20 > >>> some other=20 > >>> =20 > >>>> recent mechanisms should also be included. For instance: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> =20 > >>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf/draft-jeong-autoconf-pdad-on-demand= - > >>> =20 > >>>> 00.txt > >>>> > >>>> So, I think the updated version could be helpful. > >>>> > >>>> Best Regards, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> At 12:15 07/03/2007, you wrote: > >>>> =20 > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> I was thinking in updating my autoconf solutions survey=20 > >>>>> draft [1] and submit a -01 version. I'd like to know whether you=20 > >>>>> think it would be helpful for the WG discussions or not. If the WG=20 > >>>>> thinks it may help, I can update the draft in a few weeks. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for your opinion on that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Kind Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Carlos > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] "Survey of IP address autoconfiguration mechanisms for MANETs" > >>>>> Carlos J. Bernardos, Mar=C3=ADa Calder=C3=B3n=20 > >>>>> =20 > >>>> http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/papers/draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-sur= v > >>>> =20 > >>>>> ey-00.txt > >>>>> -- > >>>>> =C2=A1AS=C3=93CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica= .ws > >>>>> Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net > >>>>> GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Autoconf mailing list > >>>>> Autoconf@ietf.org > >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > >>>>> =20 > >>>> Alicia Trivi=C3=B1o / Tl. +34-95.213.7= 1.91 > >>>> Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica > >>>> E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion > >>>> Universidad de Malaga > >>>> Campus Universitario de Teatinos > >>>> 29071 Malaga, Spain > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Autoconf mailing list > >>>> Autoconf@ietf.org > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > >>>> =20 > >>> -- > >>> =C2=A1AS=C3=93CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.w= s > >>> Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net > >>> GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 > >>> > >>> > >>> =20 > >> =20 > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------= -- > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Autoconf mailing list > >> Autoconf@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > >> =20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >=20 > This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons abov= e and may contain confidential information. If you have received the messag= e in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. P= lease return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should yo= u have any questions, please contact us by replying to webmaster@telecomita= lia.it. >=20 > Thank you >=20 > www.telecomitalia.it >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > =20 --=20 =C2=A1AS=C3=93CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 --=-V8Ee5FL5U4FPKd96x6wn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBF9q/e7QxZUr+JuXQRAugeAKDkVBhEdsT/mW5wLP4sG73mJ2Y4rACgy1RX pmwgEXpFIKr97gituZJYFHw= =KFmL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-V8Ee5FL5U4FPKd96x6wn-- --===============1241520284== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --===============1241520284==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 07:48:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HULlq-0002Tm-IK; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:47:54 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HULlo-0002TI-Me; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:47:52 -0400 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.173] helo=mgw-ext14.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HULlk-0006vy-6V; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:47:52 -0400 Received: from esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh108.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.145]) by mgw-ext14.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l2MBlD4I014552; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:47:46 +0200 Received: from daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.112]) by esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:47:23 +0200 Received: from daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.113]) by daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 06:47:20 -0500 Received: from [10.162.59.192] ([10.162.59.192]) by daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 06:47:20 -0500 Message-ID: <46026CC1.5020903@nokia.com> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:47:13 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ext Thomas Clausen Subject: Re: [Autoconf] IMPORTANT: Arch I-D References: <6C76930F-642D-447E-A694-BF05F4D745DA@polytechnique.fr> In-Reply-To: <6C76930F-642D-447E-A694-BF05F4D745DA@polytechnique.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 11:47:21.0137 (UTC) FILETIME=[D99F9210:01C76C77] X-eXpurgate-Category: 1/0 X-eXpurgate-ID: 149371::070322134746-38AF4BB0-7E53BBFC/0-0/0-1 X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, manet X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello Thomas, I've started to review the document. One minor question -- what is meant by a "reflexive" interface? Don't you mean "symmetric"? Besides, I don't think that the interface is symmetric or transitive, at least not in the way that seems to be intended. I'd rather say it is the physical medium itself that has these properties, not the network interface. Of course, even these are just approximations. Beyond its rated length (without repeaters) an Ethernet starts to look pretty "wireless"... I'll send more comments soon. For one thing, I really think the stick figures need work. I may not be an artist, but for ASCII stick figures I think one just needs more space, not more talent. Regards, Charlie P. ext Thomas Clausen wrote: > Dear all, > > The immediate priority for the AUTOCONF wg is to finalise the Arch > I-D. Therefore, and in following up with Ian's email, I would like to > ask the working groups (AUTOCONF and MANET both) to throughly review > the architecture document as it is on the following URL prior to Prague: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-00.txt > > No doubt, a good part of the the wg meeting in Prague will be spent on > this document, with the goal of getting away with a (complete?) > todo-list for what we need to do to the I-D before advancing it within > the IETF. And, I would like this to be reflected on the AUTOCONF > mailing list (autoconf@ietf.org) such that the input from those who > will not be in Prague can be taken into account as well. > > Thanks - and see y'all soon, > > Thomas > > --Thomas Clausen > Thomas.Clausen@polytechnique.fr > http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/Labo/Thomas.Clausen/ > http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 08:47:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUMhH-00051u-Tl; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:47:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUMhH-00051n-Bj for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:47:15 -0400 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.170] helo=mgw-ext11.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUMhE-0004yy-TV for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:47:15 -0400 Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-ext11.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l2MCkfVG022992 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:47:11 +0200 Received: from daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.112]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:46:53 +0200 Received: from daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.113]) by daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:46:50 -0500 Received: from [10.162.89.9] ([10.162.89.9]) by daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:46:50 -0500 Message-ID: <46027AB1.4040903@nokia.com> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 05:46:41 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: autoconf@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 12:46:50.0554 (UTC) FILETIME=[292961A0:01C76C80] X-eXpurgate-Category: 1/0 X-eXpurgate-ID: 149371::070322144711-55721BB0-1634FF79/0-0/0-1 X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Subject: [Autoconf] Continuous detection for address uniqueness X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello folks, In draft-baccelli-autoconf-statement-02.txt, it is stated: > ... Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET > partitionning bring the need for a continuous checking for address > uniqueness within the specified scope. This makes me worry. Someone in the IESG might interpret it to mean that a candidate solution did not solve the right problem if it does not specify protocol for making continuous checks for address uniqueness. Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 11:32:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPGq-0007iT-Mm; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:32:08 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPGp-0007iF-Oc for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:32:07 -0400 Received: from server9.hosting2go.nl ([83.137.192.232]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPGN-0002vQ-Ci for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:32:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 11002 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2007 16:04:44 +0100 Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Mar 2007 16:04:44 +0100 Received: from dhcp-1561.ietf68.org (dhcp-1561.ietf68.org [130.129.21.97]) by webmail.inf-net.nl (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:04:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20070322160444.27kgahp04cwcoo8o@webmail.inf-net.nl> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:04:44 +0100 From: teco@inf-net.nl To: fred.l.templin@boeing.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1) X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Cc: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: [Autoconf] Optimistic DAD X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fred, You made a comment on duplicate address detection in an ad-hoc environment. This problem is addressed in RFC4429. Do you think there is still a problem? Teco. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 11:39:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPO1-00030p-OV; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:39:33 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPO0-000302-QJ for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:39:32 -0400 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.136.121]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPNQ-0000Wi-ML for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:39:32 -0400 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3436E1730FA for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:38:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from dhcp-35fc.ietf68.org (dhcp-35fc.ietf68.org [130.129.53.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45671723B7 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:38:48 +0100 (CET) From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: autoconf@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:39:00 +0100 Message-Id: <1174577940.4926.43.camel@acorde> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Subject: [Autoconf] Suggestions for updating draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, Today at AUTOCONF WG session I announced my intention to update the solutions survey I-D I'm co-author of. Since the WG will soon start (hopefully ;->) to look at the solution space, I think it might be useful to have an overall overview of what already proposed solutions are addressing and how (to identify pieces of work that may fit/help in the design of the AUTOCONF solutions we are starting to target at). From the feedback I obtained from the ML, it seems that people are positive in updating the survey I-D. Therefore, I'd kindly ask for comments suggestions that may improve the way solutions are described in the draft, and possible aspects that you think the survey draft should take into account to help in a better way for the objectives of the charter. I've already received some valuable feedback, please don't hesitate posting your comments/suggestions on the ML. Thanks! Carlos --=20 =A1AS=D3CIATE! Gratis para estudiantes http://www.telematica.ws Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A 4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974 _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 12:02:54 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPkc-0000R1-1g; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:02:54 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPkF-0008J7-DL for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:02:31 -0400 Received: from ccmail.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp ([133.35.23.1] helo=mxav02.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPcH-00016s-V1 for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:54:42 -0400 Received: from mxav02.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4769B4545C0 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:54:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from mxav02.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mxav02.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id 35E654544A4 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:54:16 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 24656 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2007 00:54:16 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO chamame.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp) (133.35.169.34) by mxav02.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp with SMTP; 23 Mar 2007 00:54:16 +0900 Received: (qmail 2188 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2007 00:54:13 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO neccomputer.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp) (133.35.156.66) by chamame.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp with SMTP; 23 Mar 2007 00:54:13 +0900 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20070323004025.03d55890@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7J rev1.0 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:54:10 +0900 To: "Charles E. Perkins" , autoconf@ietf.org From: mase Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Continuous detection for address uniqueness In-Reply-To: <46027AB1.4040903@nokia.com> References: <46027AB1.4040903@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Cc: X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0467229822==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --===============0467229822== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_486229046==.ALT" --=====================_486229046==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Charlie, At 21:46 07/03/22, Charles E. Perkins wrote: >Hello folks, > >In draft-baccelli-autoconf-statement-02.txt, it is stated: >> ... Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET >> partitionning bring the need for a continuous checking for address >> uniqueness within the specified scope. >This makes me worry. Someone in the IESG might interpret it >to mean that a candidate solution did not solve the right problem >if it does not specify protocol for making continuous checks for >address uniqueness. Thank you for your comments. Note that this section (Address Uniqueness Requirements) starts with the following remarks. If address uniqueness is required within a specific scope, and if the address/prefix generation mechanism in use does not totally avoid address/prefix duplication, then additional issues arise. This section overviews these problems. So, if this is not the case, the need of continuous address uniqueness checking may not occur. Does this resolve your concern? We may add this note explicitly in the draft. I also think that the word "continuous checking " may be too strong. I would propose the following. Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET partitionning bring the need for a in-service checking for address uniqueness within the specified scope, if address uniqueness is required. Regard, Kenichi --=====================_486229046==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Charlie,

At 21:46 07/03/22, Charles E. Perkins wrote:

Hello folks,

In draft-baccelli-autoconf-statement-02.txt, it is stated:
            ...    Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET
   partitionning bring the need for a continuous checking for address
   uniqueness within the specified scope.
This makes me worry.  Someone in the IESG might interpret it
to mean that a candidate solution did not solve the right problem
if it does not specify protocol for making continuous checks for
address uniqueness.

Thank you for your comments. 

Note that this section (Address Uniqueness Requirements) starts with
the following remarks.

   If address uniqueness is required within a specific scope,
and if the
   address/prefix generation mechanism in use does not totally
avoid
   address/prefix duplication, then additional issues
arise.  This section overviews these problems.

So, if this is not the case, the need of continuous address uniqueness
checking may not occur. Does this resolve your concern? We may add this
note explicitly in the draft. I also think that the word "continuous
checking " may be too strong. I would propose the following.
Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET
   partitionning bring the need for a in-service checking for address
   uniqueness within the specified scope, if address uniqueness is required.
Regard,
Kenichi --=====================_486229046==.ALT-- --===============0467229822== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --===============0467229822==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 14:50:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUSMf-0000tZ-4Z; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:50:21 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUSMd-0000tU-TC for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:50:19 -0400 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.171] helo=mgw-ext12.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUSMc-0003Aq-E7 for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:50:19 -0400 Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-ext12.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l2MIo5TL007250; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:50:09 +0200 Received: from daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.112]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:49:52 +0200 Received: from daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.113]) by daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:49:45 -0500 Received: from [10.162.31.24] ([10.162.31.24]) by daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:49:44 -0500 Message-ID: <4602CFC4.7000700@nokia.com> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:49:40 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ext mase Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Continuous detection for address uniqueness References: <46027AB1.4040903@nokia.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20070323004025.03d55890@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20070323004025.03d55890@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 18:49:45.0019 (UTC) FILETIME=[DBC110B0:01C76CB2] X-eXpurgate-Category: 1/0 X-eXpurgate-ID: 149371::070322205013-19BE7BB0-25220C7B/0-0/0-1 X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hello Kenichi, I think your revised wording resolves my concern. The introductory comments are O.K., because there is, in fact, potentially a problem. Saying "in-service" instead of "continuous" is perfect, as long as it is interpreted to mean that on-demand solutions are admissible. Regards, Charlie P. ext mase wrote: > Hi, Charlie, > > At 21:46 07/03/22, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > >> Hello folks, >> >> In draft-baccelli-autoconf-statement-02.txt, it is stated: >>> ... Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET >>> partitionning bring the need for a continuous checking for address >>> uniqueness within the specified scope. >> This makes me worry. Someone in the IESG might interpret it >> to mean that a candidate solution did not solve the right problem >> if it does not specify protocol for making continuous checks for >> address uniqueness. > > Thank you for your comments. > > Note that this section (Address Uniqueness Requirements) starts with > the following remarks. > > If address uniqueness is required within a specific scope, > and if the > address/prefix generation mechanism in use does not totally > avoid > address/prefix duplication, then additional issues > arise. This section overviews these problems. > > So, if this is not the case, the need of continuous address uniqueness > checking may not occur. Does this resolve your concern? We may add this > note explicitly in the draft. I also think that the word "continuous > checking " may be too strong. I would propose the following. > > > Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET > partitionning bring the need for a in-service checking for address > uniqueness within the specified scope, if address uniqueness is > required. > Regard, > Kenichi _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 15:35:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUT4k-00083m-UI; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:35:54 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUT4j-00083f-RJ for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:35:53 -0400 Received: from ccmail.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp ([133.35.23.1] helo=mxav01.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUT4V-0005R2-Rr for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:35:53 -0400 Received: from mxav01.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B514F4427 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:35:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from mxav01.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mxav01.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id 045A04F441F for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:35:38 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 25125 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2007 04:35:38 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO chamame.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp) (133.35.169.34) by mxav01.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp with SMTP; 23 Mar 2007 04:35:38 +0900 Received: (qmail 8172 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2007 04:35:35 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO neccomputer.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp) (133.35.156.66) by chamame.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp with SMTP; 23 Mar 2007 04:35:35 +0900 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20070323043320.03c247b0@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7J rev1.0 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:35:35 +0900 To: "Charles E. Perkins" From: mase Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Continuous detection for address uniqueness In-Reply-To: <4602CFC4.7000700@nokia.com> References: <46027AB1.4040903@nokia.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20070323004025.03d55890@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp> <4602CFC4.7000700@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da Cc: autoconf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Charlie, Ok. we will revise our document in this line. Thanks, Kenichi At 03:49 07/03/23, Charles E. Perkins wrote: >Hello Kenichi, > >I think your revised wording resolves my >concern. The introductory comments are >O.K., because there is, in fact, potentially >a problem. Saying "in-service" instead of >"continuous" is perfect, as long as it is >interpreted to mean that on-demand >solutions are admissible. > >Regards, >Charlie P. > >ext mase wrote: >>Hi, Charlie, >> >>At 21:46 07/03/22, Charles E. Perkins wrote: >> >>>Hello folks, >>> >>>In draft-baccelli-autoconf-statement-02.txt, it is stated: >>>> ... Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET >>>> partitionning bring the need for a continuous checking for address >>>> uniqueness within the specified scope. >>>This makes me worry. Someone in the IESG might interpret it >>>to mean that a candidate solution did not solve the right problem >>>if it does not specify protocol for making continuous checks for >>>address uniqueness. >> >>Thank you for your comments. >> >>Note that this section (Address Uniqueness Requirements) starts with >>the following remarks. >> >> If address uniqueness is required within a specific scope, >>and if the >> address/prefix generation mechanism in use does not totally >>avoid >> address/prefix duplication, then additional issues >>arise. This section overviews these problems. >> >>So, if this is not the case, the need of continuous address uniqueness >>checking may not occur. Does this resolve your concern? We may add this >>note explicitly in the draft. I also think that the word "continuous >>checking " may be too strong. I would propose the following. >> >> >>Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET >> partitionning bring the need for a in-service checking for address >> uniqueness within the specified scope, if address uniqueness is required. >>Regard, >>Kenichi > > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 23 15:48:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUpkM-00076F-Ne; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:48:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUpkK-000760-Al; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:48:20 -0400 Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.83.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUpkF-0001tU-W8; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:48:20 -0400 Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id l2NJmAuk014552; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from SEXTANT [132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.12.43) with SMTP id M2007032315481006802 ; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:48:10 -0400 From: "Joe Macker" To: "'Charles E. Perkins'" , "'ext Thomas Clausen'" References: <6C76930F-642D-447E-A694-BF05F4D745DA@polytechnique.fr> <46026CC1.5020903@nokia.com> Subject: RE: [manet] Re: [Autoconf] IMPORTANT: Arch I-D Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:48:07 -0400 Message-ID: <018501c76d84$2e1f1c90$165cfa84@SEXTANT> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <46026CC1.5020903@nokia.com> Thread-Index: AcdseN80wNhFAin9TEuN0x5U5tuZ4QBCbz8g X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, 'manet' X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Some comments on the minor question. I recall there has been some pushback on symmetry terminology since in some circles it implies more than just connectivity (e.g., bandwidth,delay). Bidirectional terminology has been used in some other documents. In other words many wireless connections may appear bidirectional but are not really symmetric. I know this doesn't answer why reflexive but perhaps why not symmetric (at least not without additional modifiers). -Joe >-----Original Message----- >From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:charles.perkins@nokia.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:47 AM >To: ext Thomas Clausen >Cc: autoconf@ietf.org; manet >Subject: [manet] Re: [Autoconf] IMPORTANT: Arch I-D > > >Hello Thomas, > >I've started to review the document. One minor question -- >what is meant by a "reflexive" interface? >Don't you mean "symmetric"? > >Besides, I don't think that the interface is symmetric or >transitive, at least not in the way that seems to be intended. > I'd rather say it is the physical medium itself that has >these properties, not the network interface. Of course, even >these are just approximations. >Beyond its rated length (without repeaters) an Ethernet starts >to look pretty "wireless"... > >I'll send more comments soon. For one thing, I really think >the stick figures need work. I may not be an artist, but for >ASCII stick figures I think one just needs more space, not more talent. > >Regards, >Charlie P. > > >ext Thomas Clausen wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> The immediate priority for the AUTOCONF wg is to finalise the Arch >> I-D. Therefore, and in following up with Ian's email, I >would like to >> ask the working groups (AUTOCONF and MANET both) to throughly review >> the architecture document as it is on the following URL >prior to Prague: >> >> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-00.t >> xt >> >> No doubt, a good part of the the wg meeting in Prague will >be spent on >> this document, with the goal of getting away with a (complete?) >> todo-list for what we need to do to the I-D before advancing >it within >> the IETF. And, I would like this to be reflected on the AUTOCONF >> mailing list (autoconf@ietf.org) such that the input from those who >> will not be in Prague can be taken into account as well. >> >> Thanks - and see y'all soon, >> >> Thomas >> >> --Thomas Clausen >> Thomas.Clausen@polytechnique.fr >> http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/Labo/Thomas.Clausen/ >> http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/ >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Autoconf mailing list >> Autoconf@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf >> > > >_______________________________________________ >manet mailing list >manet@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 11:58:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWx14-0002gq-VC; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:58:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWx13-0002gc-CS for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:58:21 -0400 Received: from smtp2.bae.co.uk ([20.133.0.12]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWx11-0004i8-0r for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:58:21 -0400 Received: from smtpb.greenlnk.net (smtpb.greenlnk.net [10.15.160.219]) by smtp2.bae.co.uk (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id l2TFw8ZI017260 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:58:08 +0100 (BST) Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET (glkas0002.greenlnk.net [10.15.184.52]) by smtpb.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id l2TFw4iY019965 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:58:04 +0100 Received: from glkms0002.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.2]) by glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:58:15 +0100 Received: from glkms2122.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.26]) by glkms0002.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:58:15 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [manet] Re: [Autoconf] IMPORTANT: Arch I-D Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:58:15 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [manet] Re: [Autoconf] IMPORTANT: Arch I-D Thread-Index: AcdseFQ+UeXWxALYQAeoU5yRER0RuQFoluow From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2007 15:58:15.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F866D60:01C7721B] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org >I've started to review the document. One minor >question -- what is meant by a "reflexive" interface? >Don't you mean "symmetric"? Definitely symmetric. Reflexive would be about whether X can reach X. (Based on terminology of mathematical relations.) ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf