Subject: [Autoconf] Regarding Baccelli/Townsley Internet-Draft

From: Ricardo Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:49:38 -0300

Dear group members,

I am in accordance with what is stated in the Internet-Draft
adhoc-addr-model-00 by Baccelli/Townsley.

Using the same email, I would like to ask: does the group only
consider stateless address autoconfiguration? Or is stateful
addressing also an alternative?

Regards,
Ricardo Schmidt.

PS.: some may be surprise with my email, but yes I am following the
group discussions.

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:07:24 -0700

Hello Ricardo,

We haven't gotten to the point of deciding whether to
use stateful or stateless address configuration yet.
We're still trying to get started, although I guess
things are finally resolving so that we will see some
progress soon.

My guess is that eventually solutions will be
developed for both varieties, depending upon
the network configuration and attachment.

Regards,
Charlie P.

Ricardo Schmidt wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
>
>

---

From: Ricardo Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:18:46 -0300

Hi!

That's OK!
I will re-read the draft then, and see if there is any pertinent comment.

Regards,
Ricardo Schmidt.

-- 
Ricardo Schmidt

MSc candidate in Computer Science / UFPE
BSc in Computer Science / UPF

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:41:15 -0700

I have been keeping out of this for a number of reasons,
but I think there are two things I can say for now.

First, my discomfort with both of these documents has
been largely based on the use of MAY/SHOULD/MUST and their
implications wrt to flexibility. On that subject, I would
encourage folks to go back to Stan's three messages dated
10/29/09 which IMHO very clearly articulate the implications.
Based on those considerations, I have to agree that the wg
draft gives an appropriate balance of flexibility.

Second, I want there to be flexibility to allow for
"tethered" hosts that are always single-hop neighbors
on a router's interface that otherwise has undetermined
connectivity properties. That may mean that the router's
interface may need to configure a prefix other than /32 or
/128.

I believe the flexibility is there because there is no
MAY/SHOULD/MUST, but I believe there should be specific
mention about support for tethered hosts within the model
of a "semi-undetermined" connectivity property interface.

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:05:24 +0100

>Templin, Fred L wrote:

>interface may need to configure a prefix other than /32 or

Yes, I deploy this stuff.

But proponents on the baccelli draft would say this is 
supported, as there is some determined connectivity.
I'm not sure this is valid argumentation, because I 
think the proponents know little of my MANETs.

But also for this case (same as LLs), I think it makes sense
we Autoconf work on for a maximum-length, global / ULA prefix. 
But the practical addressing model for MANETs shall dot say 
these are preferred. These are needed if nothing else is 
available and can be a stepping stone to acquire other prefixes.

Regards, Teco