From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 02 04:04:18 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FEjjM-0004Bb-D3; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:04:16 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FEjjL-00048l-Ih for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:04:15 -0500 Received: from maild.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.233.30]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FEjjJ-0003yE-Cl for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:04:15 -0500 Received: from ptpxch008ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.240.51]) by maild.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:04:06 +0100 Received: from PTPEVS108BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.241.228]) by ptpxch008ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:04:06 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.326 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: normal Priority: normal Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:04:06 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: autoconf scenarios update thread-index: AcY92EJnInc+BWwgTU6ujy1yLb73Pg== From: "Ruffino Simone" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2006 09:04:06.0795 (UTC) FILETIME=[42B3D5B0:01C63DD8] X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 37af5f8fbf6f013c5b771388e24b09e7 Subject: [Autoconf] autoconf scenarios update 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="===============0824910853==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0824910853== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1C7EAE_01C63DE0.A4973760" Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_1C7EAE_01C63DE0.A4973760 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi to all, We have re-submitted our draft, describing a number of scenarios of Internet connectivity for MANETs, which can be used as a reference for AUTOCONF work. Any comment welcome. Thanks, Simone > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : Connectivity Scenarios for MANET > > Author(s) : S. Ruffino, et al. > Filename : draft-ruffino-autoconf-conn-scenarios-00.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2006-2-24 >=09 > This Internet Draft aims at describing a wide spread set of possible > connectivity scenarios involving mobile ad-hoc networks, in order to > provide a reference for the AUTOCONF Working Group. The aspects > considered for definition and classification of the scenarios are > number and characteristics of the gateways that connect MANET nodes > to external networks. Analysis will range from a scenario where no > connectivity is provided, i.e. an isolated MANET, to more complex > scenario where a MANET has multiple mobile gateways. > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ruffino-autoconf-conn-scenario s-00.txt -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_1C7EAE_01C63DE0.A4973760 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Hi to all,

We = have re-submitted our draft, describing a number of scenarios = of
Internet connectivity for MANETs, which can be used as a reference = for
AUTOCONF work.

Any comment = welcome.
Thanks,

Simone



> A New Internet-Draft = is available from the on-line = Internet-Drafts
directories.
>
>
> Title : Connectivity = Scenarios for MANET
>
> Author(s) : S. Ruffino, et al.
> = Filename : draft-ruffino-autoconf-conn-scenarios-00.txt
> Pages : = 18
> Date : 2006-2-24
>
> This Internet Draft aims at = describing a wide spread set of possible
> connectivity scenarios = involving mobile ad-hoc networks, in order to
> provide a reference = for the AUTOCONF Working Group. The aspects
> considered for = definition and classification of the scenarios are
> number and = characteristics of the gateways that connect MANET nodes
> to = external networks. Analysis will range from a scenario where no
> = connectivity is provided, i.e. an isolated MANET, to more complex
> = scenario where a MANET has multiple mobile gateways.
>
>
>
> = A URL for this Internet-Draft = is:
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ruffino-autoconf-co= nn-scenario
s-00.txt

--------------------------------------------------------------------=
CONFIDENTIALITY=20 NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the=20 persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have=20 received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the = content=20 hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and=20 delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us=20 by
replying to webmaster@telecomitalia.it.
        = Thank=20 you
           =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;   =20 www.telecomitalia.it
--------------------------------------------------------------------=
------=_NextPart_000_1C7EAE_01C63DE0.A4973760-- --===============0824910853== 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 --===============0824910853==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 08 06:03:06 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGwRe-0005e9-2C; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 06:03:06 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGwRc-0005e4-Nv for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 06:03:04 -0500 Received: from deprox.docomolab-euro.com ([212.119.9.186]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGwRb-0004da-8k for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 06:03:04 -0500 Received: from 172.27.10.3 by deprox.docomolab-euro.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:03:01 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:03:01 +0100 Message-ID: <28F05C819859B042BBF585C4997D5A479E0244@deex.docomolab-euro.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New I-D on MANET/Internet connection with mutiple gateways Thread-Index: AcZCn9zQM1XjSXo+RnWMyTlASUIrxA== From: "Hofmann, Philipp" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Subject: [Autoconf] New I-D on MANET/Internet connection with mutiple gateways 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, I've submitted a draft that describes another solution for connecting = MANETs and Internet via multiple gateways: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hofmann-autoconf-mran-00.txt We have an implementation of this protocol running in a testbed with 10 = MNs and 3 GWs, where we also have done a performance evaluation. Comments are welcome! Philipp _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 09 01:59:59 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FHF7v-0001XQ-OQ; Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:59:59 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FHF7u-0001XL-KZ for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:59:58 -0500 Received: from mailout1.samsung.com ([203.254.224.24]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FHF7s-0006E8-UK for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:59:58 -0500 Received: from ep_mmp1 (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 <0IVU00CRLM3UV1@mailout1.samsung.com> for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:59:54 +0900 (KST) Received: from Shubhranshu ([75.2.91.95]) by mmp1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IVU005V8M3UK4@mmp1.samsung.com> for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:59:54 +0900 (KST) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:59:52 +0900 From: Shubhranshu To: autoconf@ietf.org Message-id: <020601c64347$118585a0$5f5b024b@Shubhranshu> Organization: Samsung Electronics MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ks_c_5601-1987 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Subject: [Autoconf] IETF 65 Autoconf WG agenda request 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 If you have any agenda item for the upcoming Autoconf WG meeting then please send them to the chairs. We would also like to keep one/two slide announcement/update of new drafts and related works in the agenda. - Chairs _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 10 06:21:20 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FHfgO-00064b-Ds; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:21:20 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FHfgN-00063I-9j for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:21:19 -0500 Received: from maile.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.233.31]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FHfgJ-0002qj-2R for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:21:19 -0500 Received: from ptpxch008ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.240.51]) by maile.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:21:03 +0100 Received: from PTPEVS108BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.241.228]) by ptpxch008ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:21:03 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.326 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: normal Priority: normal Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:21:02 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: autoconf solution draft updated thread-index: AcZENLdZpgcLmm/LRIKCQ9uU7j6eSg== From: "Ruffino Simone" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2006 11:21:03.0444 (UTC) FILETIME=[B782F940:01C64434] X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8f374d0786b25a451ef87d82c076f593 Subject: [Autoconf] autoconf solution draft updated 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="===============1066616698==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1066616698== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_C1A1C_01C6443D.196DD500" Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_C1A1C_01C6443D.196DD500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, We have submitted an updated version (-02) of our draft "Automatic = configuration of IPv6 addresses for MANET with multiple gateways".=20 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ruffino-manet-autoconf-multigw-= 02.txt The draft has substantially changed from previous versions: now it aims = to be routing protocol independent, it uses SMF and supports multiple = concurrent IPv6 addresses configured on MANET nodes. Finally, = implementation details for OLSRv1 are described in the appendixes. Comments are more than welcome ! Best regards, Simone p.s. the latest versions of all of our autoconf-related submissions can = be found at http://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/ruffino/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: gioved=EC 9 marzo 2006 21.50 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ruffino-manet-autoconf-multigw-02.txt >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >=20 >=20 > Title : Automatic configuration of IPv6 addresses for MANET with > multiple gateways > Author(s) : S. Ruffino, P. Stupar > Filename : draft-ruffino-manet-autoconf-multigw-02.txt > Pages : 36 > Date : 2006-3-9 >=20 > This document describes a mechanism for stateless autoconfiguration > of IPv6 addresses for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs), connected to > the Internet by means of one or more gateways. Network prefixes are > disseminated by Internet gateways and are used by nodes to configure > a set of global IPv6 addresses. An algorithm is specified, by which > nodes can choose the optimal address for data traffic. Configured > global addresses are also advertised to other MANET nodes, to > minimize latencies in case of gateway failures, partitions and > mergers. The specified mechanism aims to be independent from any > particular MANET routing protocol and to effectively exploit multiple > gateways. >=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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_C1A1C_01C6443D.196DD500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Dear all,

We = have submitted an updated version (-02) of our draft "Automatic = configuration of IPv6 addresses for MANET with multiple gateways". =
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ruffino-manet-autoconf-mult= igw-02.txt

The draft has substantially changed from previous = versions: now it aims to be routing protocol independent, it uses SMF = and supports multiple concurrent IPv6 addresses configured on MANET = nodes. Finally, implementation details for OLSRv1 are described in the = appendixes.

Comments are more than welcome !

Best = regards,
Simone

p.s. the latest versions of all of our = autoconf-related submissions can be found at = http://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/ruffino/


> -----Original = Message-----
> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org = [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org]
> Sent: gioved=EC 9 marzo 2006 = 21.50
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D = ACTION:draft-ruffino-manet-autoconf-multigw-02.txt
>
> A New = Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories.
>
>
> Title : Automatic configuration of IPv6 = addresses for MANET with
> multiple gateways
> Author(s) : S. = Ruffino, P. Stupar
> Filename : = draft-ruffino-manet-autoconf-multigw-02.txt
> Pages : 36
> Date = : 2006-3-9
>
> This document describes a mechanism for stateless = autoconfiguration
> of IPv6 addresses for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks = (MANETs), connected to
> the Internet by means of one or more = gateways. Network prefixes are
> disseminated by Internet gateways = and are used by nodes to configure
> a set of global IPv6 addresses. = An algorithm is specified, by which
> nodes can choose the optimal = address for data traffic. Configured
> global addresses are also = advertised to other MANET nodes, to
> minimize latencies in case of = gateway failures, partitions and
> mergers. The specified mechanism = aims to be independent from any
> particular MANET routing protocol = and to effectively exploit multiple
> gateways.
> =
>



--------------------------------------------------------------------=
CONFIDENTIALITY=20 NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the=20 persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have=20 received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the = content=20 hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and=20 delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us=20 by
replying to webmaster@telecomitalia.it.
        = Thank=20 you
           =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;   =20 www.telecomitalia.it
--------------------------------------------------------------------=
------=_NextPart_000_C1A1C_01C6443D.196DD500-- --===============1066616698== 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 --===============1066616698==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 15 07:44:44 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJVMp-0003lM-K5; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:44:43 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJVMo-0003lE-CS for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:44:42 -0500 Received: from mailout2.samsung.com ([203.254.224.25]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJVMm-0007y6-Ve for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:44:42 -0500 Received: from ep_mmp2 (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 <0IW600B9L603U8@mailout2.samsung.com> for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:43:15 +0900 (KST) Received: from Shubhranshu (adsl-75-2-91-95.dsl.chcgil.sbcglobal.net [75.2.91.95]) by mmp2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.17 (built Jun 23 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0IW6007MN603RL@mmp2.samsung.com> for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:43:15 +0900 (KST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:43:14 +0900 From: Shubhranshu To: autoconf@ietf.org Message-id: <005f01c6482e$06fa4bc0$5f5b024b@Shubhranshu> Organization: Samsung Electronics MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ks_c_5601-1987 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Subject: [Autoconf] Agenda for IETF 65 Autoconf WG meeting 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 IETF-65 Autoconf WG Agenda --------------------------- AUTOCONF Session 1 (2 hours) Thursday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500 Room Name: Chantilly West 1. Preliminaries: (10 min) - Agenda Bashing (5 min) - chairs - Goals for MANET Architecture & Problem Statement discussion (5 min) - chairs 2. "MANET Architecture Document" (40 min) - MANET Architecture document walk-through & discussion (30 min) (to be announced soon) - Concluding remarks & next step (10 min) 3. "Problem Statement Document" (40 min) - Definition and Problem Statement update (10 min) (draft-singh-autoconf-adp-03) - Internet gateway & MANET Scenario presentation (20 min) (draft-ruffino-autoconf-conn-scenarios-00) - Concluding remarks & next step (10 min) 4. (30 min) - Multi-Subnet MANETs discussion (15 min) (draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets-00.txt) - Autoconf framework update (5 min) (draft-mase-autoconf-framework-01) - EMAP (5 min) (draft-ros-autoconf-emap-02.txt) - MRAN (5 min) (draft-hofmann-autoconf-mran-00) _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 20 11:25:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLNBn-0003XU-IV; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:25:03 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLNBl-0003XA-RW for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:25:01 -0500 Received: from maild.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.233.30]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLNBj-0000Gu-BJ for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:25:01 -0500 Received: from ptpxch009ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.240.52]) by maild.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:25:14 +0100 Received: from PTPEVS108BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.241.228]) by ptpxch009ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:24:52 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.326 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: normal Priority: normal Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:24:52 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Int-area] agenda for intarea meeting in Dallas, take three thread-index: AcZMHTimluGZ/nMTT62ApviYxUDlhgAHG9TA From: "Ruffino Simone" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2006 16:24:52.0694 (UTC) FILETIME=[D11F4760:01C64C3A] X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3fbd9b434023f8abfcb1532abaec7a21 Subject: [Autoconf] FW: [Int-area] agenda for intarea meeting in Dallas, take three 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="===============0290881407==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0290881407== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_8A761_01C64C43.42BE85E0" Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_8A761_01C64C43.42BE85E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FYI For those of us who are in Dallas, I think presentation #6. of the = int-area meeting agenda is very interesting, 'cause it is also related = with AUTOCONF work:=20 Item 3: (30 min) - Multi-Subnet MANETs discussion (15 min) (draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets-00.txt) Regs, Simone -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net]=20 Sent: luned=EC 20 marzo 2006 13.48 To: Internet Area Subject: [Int-area] agenda for intarea meeting in Dallas, take three Internet Area Open Meeting (intarea) MONDAY, March 20, 2006 Room Coronado BCD 1520-1720 Afternoon Session II (at the same time as lemonade, speermint, capwap, pce, rmt, tcpm, btns) 1. Administrative (5 min) - Notes takers - Agenda bash 2. Internet area status update (20 min, ADs) - New AD - WG news - BOFs at IETF-65 - Declined BOFs - Document status for "area documents" . draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt (IESG Eval) . draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-01.txt (IESG Eval) . draft-bonica-internet-icmp-01.txt (Active) . draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt (Active) . draft-bagnulo-ipv6-rfc3484-update-00.txt (Active) 3. Update on using experimental values - IANA rules on IPv4, IPv6, ICMP, UDP, TCP (10 min, TBD) - draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt 4. Taking IPv6 into account in your IETF specification work (20 min, Margaret Wasserman) - Common errors that people have made - How to properly take IPv6 into account 5. CableLabs DOCSIS 3.0 and IPv6 support (20 min, Jean-Francois Mule/Ralph Droms) 6. Multilink subnet issues (20 min, Dave Thaler) - draft-thaler-intarea-multilink-subnet-issues-00.txt 7. RFC 1264 usage in the Internet area (20 min, Mark Townsley) http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg00235.html - Employing RFC 1264 and routing area implementation requirements for Proposed Standard RFCs in the Internet area - Where does this apply - Call for input on the RFC 1264bis work (draft-fenner-zinin-rtg-standard-reqts-01.txt) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_8A761_01C64C43.42BE85E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
FYI

For those = of us who are in Dallas, I think presentation #6. of the int-area = meeting agenda is very interesting, 'cause it is also related with = AUTOCONF work:



Item = 3: (30 min)
- Multi-Subnet MANETs discussion (15 = min)
= (draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets-00.txt)


Regs,<= BR>Simone

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko = [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net]
Sent: luned=EC 20 marzo 2006 = 13.48
To: Internet Area
Subject: [Int-area] agenda for intarea = meeting in Dallas, take three


Internet Area Open Meeting = (intarea)
MONDAY, March 20, 2006
Room Coronado BCD
1520-1720 = Afternoon Session II
(at the same time as lemonade, speermint, = capwap, pce, rmt, tcpm, btns)

1. Administrative (5 min)
- = Notes takers
- Agenda bash

2. Internet area status update = (20 min, ADs)
- New AD
- WG news
- BOFs at IETF-65
= - Declined BOFs
- Document status for "area documents"
. = draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt (IESG Eval)
. = draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-01.txt (IESG Eval)
. = draft-bonica-internet-icmp-01.txt (Active)
. = draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt (Active)
. = draft-bagnulo-ipv6-rfc3484-update-00.txt (Active)

3. Update on = using experimental values - IANA rules on
IPv4, IPv6, ICMP, UDP, = TCP (10 min, TBD)
- draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt

4. = Taking IPv6 into account in your IETF specification work
(20 min, = Margaret Wasserman)
- Common errors that people have made
- = How to properly take IPv6 into account

5. CableLabs DOCSIS 3.0 = and IPv6 support (20 min,
Jean-Francois Mule/Ralph = Droms)

6. Multilink subnet issues (20 min, Dave Thaler)
- = draft-thaler-intarea-multilink-subnet-issues-00.txt

7. RFC 1264 = usage in the Internet area (20 min, Mark Townsley)
= http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg00235.html
= - Employing RFC 1264 and routing area implementation requirements
= for Proposed Standard RFCs in the Internet area
- Where does = this apply
- Call for input on the RFC 1264bis work
= (draft-fenner-zinin-rtg-standard-reqts-01.txt)

--------------------------------------------------------------------=
CONFIDENTIALITY=20 NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the=20 persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have=20 received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the = content=20 hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and=20 delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us=20 by
replying to webmaster@telecomitalia.it.
        = Thank=20 you
           =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;   =20 www.telecomitalia.it
--------------------------------------------------------------------=
------=_NextPart_000_8A761_01C64C43.42BE85E0-- --===============0290881407== 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 --===============0290881407==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 29 07:35:39 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FOZtj-0003eu-Fq; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:35:39 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FOZth-0003dH-Vj for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:35:37 -0500 Received: from roura.ac.upc.es ([147.83.33.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FOZtg-0001sy-GG for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:35:37 -0500 Received: from gw.ac.upc.es (gw.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.3]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2TCZYn4019164 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:35:34 +0200 Received: from [147.83.34.33] (pcamos.ac.upc.es [147.83.34.33]) by gw.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB30D101FA8 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:35:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <442A7F16.1070801@ac.upc.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:35:34 +0200 From: Manel Guerrero Zapata User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060309) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: autoconf@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Subject: [Autoconf] draft-guerrero-manet-sakm-00.txt and new SAODV website 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, 1) I've already told this in the manet list but I forgot to say it also here: The server where the SAODV web page used to be is down. The new URL of the SAODV web page is: http://people.ac.upc.edu/guerrero/saodv.html 2) One of the drafts I submmited in February is SAKM: "The Simple Ad hoc Key Management (SAKM) is a key management system that allows to the nodes of an ad hoc network to use asymmetric cryptography with zero configuration. It is intended to be applied to MANET routing protocols that provide security features that require the use of asymmetric cryptography (like SAODV and SDYMO)." It deals with the DAD you've been talking about in this list (from now on I'll try to read it periodically). So I thought you'd be interested in it. It used to be a part of the SAODV draft but now it has its own draft. Anyway, you can get the draft from: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-guerrero-manet-sakm-00.txt Don't hesitate to give me your comments. Best regards, Manel _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 30 13:42:33 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FP26L-0000Tw-Qx; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:42:33 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FP26L-0000RX-3K for Autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:42:33 -0500 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.192]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FP26J-0002e8-T3 for Autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:42:33 -0500 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 40so529886nzk for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:42:31 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=EV1fkLdIYwA6zGvaa1at7QZ4GRU5Y604ya8ZFXLRYAukUCxPUE6dO+CrvXWt9hCo1YkH0wZL5w3x/Ggmms/MH40nlq9bXUgyhCbKYaDEw3nwwOOy8olSESD4UJbVpLaXW2ZZn68AhccUMBy7HThLP4gN+O0xO83rLwD/1cOEW1E= Received: by 10.64.88.10 with SMTP id l10mr122079qbb; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:42:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.114.14 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:42:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <28f9b9dc0603301042v4e7eb50dld771f8b2cfdcfc0e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:42:31 +0200 From: "Ana Bea Solana" To: Autoconf@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Cc: Subject: [Autoconf] Autoconfiguration implementations 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="===============0034946475==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --===============0034946475== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_6269_32985967.1143744151394" ------=_Part_6269_32985967.1143744151394 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Dear all, I am new in this mailing list and I am interested in knowing the different available implementation of IP autoconfiguration mechanisms in ad-hoc networks to make some tests with them in a lab environment. Could anybody tell me which they are? PACMAN (weniger), jelger, is there an implementatio= n for multi-gw(ruffino)? Thanks all, Ana Beatriz Solana ------=_Part_6269_32985967.1143744151394 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Dear all,
 
I am new in this mailing list and I am interested in knowing the diffe= rent available implementation of IP autoconfiguration mechanisms in ad-hoc = networks to make some tests with them in a lab environment. Could anybody t= ell me which they are? PACMAN (weniger), jelger, is there an implementation= for multi-gw(ruffino)?
 
Thanks all,
 
Ana Beatriz Solana
------=_Part_6269_32985967.1143744151394-- --===============0034946475== 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 --===============0034946475==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 30 19:58:42 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FP7yM-0001kE-Fk; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:58:42 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FP7yL-0001k9-Ai for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:58:41 -0500 Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.64.48]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FP7yK-0002Ti-1J for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:58:41 -0500 Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com ([192.76.190.6]) by slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2.MG.10092003/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id QAA20427; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:58:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-AV-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id k2V0wcN26849; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:58:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:58:37 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:58:35 -0800 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AD9@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs Thread-Index: AcZUXj109ThDOJ+TRcSPfZRMJStFbA== From: "Templin, Fred L" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2006 00:58:37.0281 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E237D10:01C6545E] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com Subject: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs 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 Dave, I notice that 'draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets' is silent on the subject of how MANET routers can configure and use a default route. Do you have any thoughts on this? Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com=20 _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 31 02:41:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPEG1-0003un-NI; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:41:21 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPEG0-0003ty-CV for Autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:41:20 -0500 Received: from balu2.urz.unibas.ch ([131.152.1.52]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPEFu-0002KY-R1 for Autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:41:20 -0500 Received: from [10.147.66.180] (int-35-158.mobile.unibas.ch [131.152.35.158]) by balu2.urz.unibas.ch (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k2V7fCcm013340; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:41:12 +0200 Message-ID: <442CDD34.2000208@unibas.ch> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:41:40 +0200 From: Christophe Jelger Organization: University of Basel User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ana Bea Solana Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconfiguration implementations References: <28f9b9dc0603301042v4e7eb50dld771f8b2cfdcfc0e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <28f9b9dc0603301042v4e7eb50dld771f8b2cfdcfc0e@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SMTP-Vilter-Version: 1.3.1 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 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 Ana, The "jelger" solution is available here. There are 2 versions: one stand-alone daemon and an integrated one with OLSR. Although it's not really maintained any more, it works! ;-) http://www-r2.u-strasbg.fr/~frey/safari/autoconf.html regards, Christophe Ana Bea Solana wrote: > Dear all, > > I am new in this mailing list and I am interested in knowing the > different available implementation of IP autoconfiguration mechanisms in > ad-hoc networks to make some tests with them in a lab environment. Could > anybody tell me which they are? PACMAN (weniger), jelger, is there an > implementation for multi-gw(ruffino)? > > Thanks all, > > Ana Beatriz Solana > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Mar 31 13:20:31 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPOEZ-0005Og-Ik; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:20:31 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPOEY-0005O3-4F for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:20:30 -0500 Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.83.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPOEV-0007j9-SI for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:20:30 -0500 Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id k2VIKPZu012545; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from SEXTANT [132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.11.41) with SMTP id M2006033113202429782 ; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:20:24 -0500 From: "Joe Macker" To: "'Templin, Fred L'" , Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:20:24 -0500 Message-ID: <013c01c654ef$c726e610$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: AcZUXj109ThDOJ+TRcSPfZRMJStFbAAjjfGg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AD9@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com 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/All: I know this question was addressed at Dave, but for at least proactive routing issues should addressed with some relationship to architecture. e.g., stub areas, totally stub areas, NSSA type, transit. So I think you have to first say what is the deployment scenario. For stub or totally stub the border router(s) should proactively inject a default route. This is normal operation for things like MANET-OSPF and OLSR types of deployments. Other cases are more complex. Are there reasons why this should be different than normal intra-domain types of approaches? I see draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets as a valid subcase of what we can do. Is there some motivation why there is a difference here in default route injection approach? I guess I am thinking in terms of typical OSPF default route handling/deployment use cases. Did you have something in mind or just curious? I think it's a good question, but I would like to see this discussion be more generally addressed and am presently hoping we could follow standard best practices where it makes sense. I'd also like to hear if someone has a reason why we should do something different. -Joe >-----Original Message----- >From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:59 PM >To: autoconf@ietf.org >Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com >Subject: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs > >Dave, > >I notice that 'draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets' >is silent on the subject of how MANET routers can configure >and use a default route. Do you have any thoughts on this? > >Fred >fred.l.templin@boeing.com > >_______________________________________________ >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 Fri Mar 31 13:52:58 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPOjx-0000QF-V2; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:52:57 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPOjx-0000QA-6m for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:52:57 -0500 Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com ([205.226.5.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPOjw-0008Az-QQ for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:52:57 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id k2VIDLt29141; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:13:21 -0800 X-mProtect: <200603311813> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection Received: from da-niradhcp1656.americas.nokia.com (10.241.165.6, claiming to be "[127.0.0.1]") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpdbXEon2; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:13:19 PST Message-ID: <442D7A72.9030703@iprg.nokia.com> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:52:35 -0800 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Nokia Research Center, Mtn. View User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Macker Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs References: <013c01c654ef$c726e610$165cfa84@SEXTANT> In-Reply-To: <013c01c654ef$c726e610$165cfa84@SEXTANT> 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, dthaler@microsoft.com 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 Joe, I have some comments after your e-mail, about the presentation made by Dave Thaler. Joe Macker wrote: > ... would like to see this discussion be more generally >addressed and am presently hoping we could follow standard best practices >where it makes sense. I'd also like to hear if someone has a reason why we >should do something different. > > First, I was surprised that Dave came out against host routes for ad hoc networks. This position is not stated clearly in his drafts, and I find it worrisome because so much work in ad hoc networks does use host routes. I think it is _possible_ to use link local addresses for forwarding packets to a neighbor, but I shudder and worry if new protocol will be "required" in order to assure that link-local addresses are unique across an entire ad hoc network. Using IPv? addresses with global scope almost entirely avoids this problem. There are proposals already known to the group about how to get such addresses. If we suppose (a priori) that link-local addresses are unique, without requiring additional protocol, then things can be made to work more easily. I still do not think it provides any noticeable benefit over using IPv? addresses with global scope, but at least there don't seem to be too many nasty repercussions. But that's _if_ we can assume that the link-local addresses are unique without doing any real work. So, for instance, one could restrict the results of the [autoconf] working group to apply only when the radio devices can be assumed to come equipped with known unique MAC addresses, from which known unique link-local addresses can be derived. One thing I tried to point out at the meeting, was that, purely within the constraints imposed by IPv6, link-local addresses are only known to be unique within a link. In a typical radio environment, a link is not so well-defined, but it is typically either taken to be either the whole ad hoc network, or a one-hop neighborhood of a node. The former case imposes the abovementioned strong requirement for globally unique link-local addresses (e.g. by MAC address uniqueness). The latter case is quite tricky, and protocol solutions have to deal with mobility and the dynamic nature of the neighborhood. Either way is treacherous it seems to me, unless the working group is comfortable with assuming the convenience of global uniqueness for MAC addresses. In short, I think that the proposal to use link-local addresses is problematic, and does not offer any clear advantages over using host routes. Using unnumbered interfaces for IPv4 is a somewhat different case, and as far as I can tell it doesn't introduce terrible problems, but on the other hand it doesn't provide any noticeable benefits either as far as I can tell. And, to be honest, I didn't think about this case very much so I might have overlooked something. Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 31 16:32:19 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPREB-0004CS-FJ; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:32:19 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPREA-0004CN-1J for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:32:18 -0500 Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.96.56]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPRE9-0007HN-M0 for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:32:18 -0500 Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com ([192.42.227.216]) by stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2.MG.10092003/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id PAA00278; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:32:09 -0600 (CST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-AV-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id k2VLW9T20740; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:32:06 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:32:05 -0800 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818ADE@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <013c01c654ef$c726e610$165cfa84@SEXTANT> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs) Thread-Index: AcZUXj109ThDOJ+TRcSPfZRMJStFbAAjjfGgAAZlm8A= From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Joe Macker" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2006 21:32:06.0123 (UTC) FILETIME=[8ED893B0:01C6550A] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1b0e72ff1bbd457ceef31828f216a86 Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com 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 Joe, In retrospect, it was more of a general question for the MANET routing protocols than anything specific to Multi-Subnet MANETs so I'm going to change the subject line. I agree that with the proactive routing protocols the MANET border routers can inject a default route into the routing protocol and it propagates through the MANET just fine. (In fact, I now recall that we did this with TBRPF back in the 2001-2002 timeframe as I'm sure you have done with any proactive routing protocols you may be using in your studies.) However, from reading the globalv6 proposal, it seems that the landscape may be different for the reactive protocols. In 'draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt', sections 5.3 and 6 the authors assert that special handling is needed in the reactive protocol case to establish a default route and direct packets through a default gateway. In particular, since the reactive protocols do not maintain complete topology information at each MANET router, globalv6 says that nodes sending packets via a particular MANET border router must insert a routing header that names the final destination and insert the address of the MANET border router in the IPv6 destination address. This seems like it would require a kernel hack to make it work. So its clear that this discussion is aside from the question of Multi-Subnet MANETs, but it might be a differentiator between reactive and proactive protocols from the standpoint of Internet attachment. Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com =20 -----Original Message----- From: Joe Macker [mailto:joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil]=20 Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 10:20 AM To: Templin, Fred L; autoconf@ietf.org Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs Fred/All: I know this question was addressed at Dave, but for at least proactive routing issues should addressed with some relationship to architecture. e.g., stub areas, totally stub areas, NSSA type, transit. So I think you have to first say what is the deployment scenario.=20 For stub or totally stub the border router(s) should proactively inject a default route. This is normal operation for things like MANET-OSPF and OLSR types of deployments. Other cases are more complex. Are there reasons why this should be different than normal intra-domain types of approaches? I see draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets as a valid subcase of what we can do. Is there some motivation why there is a difference here in default route injection approach? I guess I am thinking in terms of typical OSPF default route handling/deployment use cases. =20 Did you have something in mind or just curious? I think it's a good question, but I would like to see this discussion be more generally addressed and am presently hoping we could follow standard best practices where it makes sense. I'd also like to hear if someone has a reason why we should do something different. -Joe >-----Original Message----- >From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com]=20 >Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:59 PM >To: autoconf@ietf.org >Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com >Subject: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs > >Dave, > >I notice that 'draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets' >is silent on the subject of how MANET routers can configure=20 >and use a default route. Do you have any thoughts on this? > >Fred >fred.l.templin@boeing.com=20 > >_______________________________________________ >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 Fri Mar 31 16:55:05 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPRaD-0004e8-EQ; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:55:05 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPRaB-0004bw-Pb for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:55:03 -0500 Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.64.48]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPRaA-0008Fx-EX for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:55:03 -0500 Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com ([192.42.227.216]) by slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2.MG.10092003/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id NAA28321 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:54:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-AV-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id k2VLsuT03971 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:54:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:54:52 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:54:52 -0800 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818ADF@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <013c01c654ef$c726e610$165cfa84@SEXTANT> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Subnet allocation protocols for Multi-Subnet MANETs Thread-Index: AcZUXj109ThDOJ+TRcSPfZRMJStFbAAjjfGgAAeNczA= From: "Templin, Fred L" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2006 21:54:53.0118 (UTC) FILETIME=[BDA375E0:01C6550D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Subject: [Autoconf] Subnet allocation protocols for Multi-Subnet MANETs 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 The Multi-Subnet MANETs document wisely declares details of the subnet allocation protocol as out of scope, but this forum seems to be the right place to discuss them. >From the requirements listed in section 4.1 of the document, a natural candidate for subnet allocation would seem to be DHCP. But, I am concerned that the dynamic nature of path changes in the MANET could have adverse effect on the chain of DHCP relays between the client and the DHCP server. Can anyone comment about the applicability of DHCP in MANETs? Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com=20 _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 31 16:59:51 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPRep-0006FO-ET; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:59:51 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPReo-0006FJ-Cv for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:59:50 -0500 Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com ([205.226.5.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPRem-00009A-Pm for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:59:50 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id k2VLKIU17640; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:20:18 -0800 X-mProtect: <200603312120> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection Received: from da-niradhcp1656.americas.nokia.com (10.241.165.6, claiming to be "[127.0.0.1]") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpddcu0nT; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:20:16 PST Message-ID: <442DA645.6060206@iprg.nokia.com> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:59:33 -0800 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Nokia Research Center, Mtn. View User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Templin, Fred L" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Subnet allocation protocols for Multi-Subnet MANETs References: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818ADF@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818ADF@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 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 Fred, Templin, Fred L wrote: > ..... I am concerned that the >dynamic nature of path changes in the MANET could have >adverse effect on the chain of DHCP relays between the >client and the DHCP server. > I share this concern, and I think that as a practical matter DHCP is not well suited for dynamic ad hoc networks. For networks that have gateways to the Internet, schemes have been worked out to rely on a stable DHCP server, but even these seem vulnerable to failures, it seems to me. Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 31 17:21:03 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPRzL-0005tk-5N; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:21:03 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPRyZ-0005LT-RL for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:20:15 -0500 Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.32.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPRsw-0000xd-2Y for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:14:27 -0500 Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com ([192.76.190.6]) by blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2.MG.10092003/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id OAA14527; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:14:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-AV-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id k2VMEJN19273; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:14:19 -0600 (CST) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:14:18 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:14:18 -0800 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE0@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818ADF@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Avoiding wasted address space in Multi-Subnet MANETs Thread-Index: AcZUXj109ThDOJ+TRcSPfZRMJStFbAAjjfGgAAeNczAAAP7OEA== From: "Templin, Fred L" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2006 22:14:18.0625 (UTC) FILETIME=[7455B710:01C65510] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com Subject: [Autoconf] Avoiding wasted address space in Multi-Subnet MANETs 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 like the idea of allocating subnet prefixes to MANET routers very much, but I have heard concerns voiced in other working groups (TRILL, in particular) that allocating an entire /64 prefix to a router that may use only a small fraction of the available address space is wasteful. I realize that /64 is the finest granularity for subnet assignment in IPv6, but it could be that not all routers in a MANET will need to allocate prefixes for the purpose of downstream delegation. Can there be a hybrid method whereby MANET routers that need to allocate prefix(es) for downstream delegation allocate as many /64s as they need and other MANET routers delegate a /128, i.e., a host route? (Those router that require prefixes for downstream delegation at a later time could always defer the delegation until such a time that the /64s are actually needed.)=20 Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 31 18:29:49 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPT3t-0002ER-Mo; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:29:49 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPT3s-0002EM-1h for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:29:48 -0500 Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.83.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPT3r-0004Hd-OC for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:29:48 -0500 Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id k2VNTkZu023359; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from SEXTANT [132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.11.41) with SMTP id M2006033118294631493 ; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:29:46 -0500 From: "Joe Macker" To: "'Charles E. Perkins'" Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:29:45 -0500 Message-ID: <016f01c6551a$fe672100$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: AcZU9FKHXrEhHYxMSGSIMKb4aeV1eQAIIsbw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <442D7A72.9030703@iprg.nokia.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8f374d0786b25a451ef87d82c076f593 Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, dthaler@microsoft.com 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 Charlie: At least so you understand some of my thoughts better.. I don't have time tonight to say too much but let me say this. I think I live in both worlds! I see Dave's general approach as valid and supported presently. Its close to the architecture approach taken by manet-ospf type developers,etc. e.g., unnumbered addresses or link local addresses (IPv6) on manet interfaces. He may see it as the only approach (I'll let him answer that). It was worrisome to me to see some people didn't realize this was already taking place. Perhaps bad communications on our part. And I do feel people/companies etc can decide how to deploy things in their own way. I do not think these need to be standardized. Perhaps BCPs at some point, if there is rough consensus, to better communicate. I agree requiring only one specific architecture approach is likely wrong, but it helps to identify valid ones. Thus when documenting solutions or best practices one can be specific about particular architectural assumptions. I also see the host/router or (all 1s prefix) approach as also valid. I and many others have done stub PDA and laptop networks as such. It doesn't really break things if you do it right. So I didn't see "the sky falling" It may make some local interface protocols unnecessary because its not an Ethernet subnet model. Some experimenters forget this and put a prefix mask on the MANET interface. Use multicast link local for signalling (even in IPv4 I do not like broadcast). Do a proper prefix assignment on that interface. This has been done for years. Support attached prefixes, no problem, supported as well. MORE ISSUES: I also had disagreements with introductory parts of the ID as well. We had early discussions with zeroconf,etc and we agreed their scope did not include this model. It seemd a little unnecessary to make all this arguments. The approach is valid and useful without the arguments Finally, I think its good to have these discussions and see if we can come to some consensus. Perhaps we can agree there are two types of valid architectural models and proceed. I agreed with you on the stronger MAC or link local uniqueness issue. I think for wireless deployments this is an important issue. I want to leave the option open to turn of DAD or be more passive if one can trust one's deployment strategy. These are intradomain protocols after all Boy, I said more than I thought I had time for and got in trouble with the wife! Got to go. >-----Original Message----- >From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:charliep@iprg.nokia.com] >Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:53 PM >To: Joe Macker >Cc: autoconf@ietf.org; dthaler@microsoft.com >Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs > > >Hello Joe, > >I have some comments after your e-mail, about the presentation >made by Dave Thaler. > >Joe Macker wrote: > >> ... would like to see this discussion be more generally >>addressed and am presently hoping we could follow standard best >>practices where it makes sense. I'd also like to hear if >someone has >>a reason why we should do something different. >> >> >First, I was surprised that Dave came out against host routes >for ad hoc networks. This position is not stated clearly in >his drafts, and I find it worrisome because so much work in ad >hoc networks does use host routes. I think it is _possible_ >to use link local addresses for forwarding packets to a >neighbor, but I shudder and worry if new protocol will be >"required" in order to assure that link-local addresses are >unique across an entire ad hoc network. >Using IPv? addresses with global scope almost entirely avoids >this problem. There are proposals already known to the group >about how to get such addresses. > >If we suppose (a priori) that link-local addresses are unique, >without requiring additional protocol, then things can be made >to work more easily. I still do not think it provides any >noticeable benefit over using IPv? addresses with global >scope, but at least there don't seem to be too many nasty >repercussions. But that's _if_ we can assume that the >link-local addresses are unique without doing any real work. >So, for instance, one could restrict the results of the >[autoconf] working group to apply only when the radio devices >can be assumed to come equipped with known unique MAC >addresses, from which known unique link-local addresses can be derived. > >One thing I tried to point out at the meeting, was that, >purely within the constraints imposed by IPv6, link-local >addresses are only known to be unique within a link. In a >typical radio environment, a link is not so well-defined, but >it is typically either taken to be either the whole ad hoc >network, or a one-hop neighborhood of a node. The former case >imposes the abovementioned strong requirement for globally >unique link-local addresses (e.g. by MAC address uniqueness). >The latter case is quite tricky, and protocol solutions have >to deal with mobility and the dynamic nature of the >neighborhood. Either way is treacherous it seems to me, >unless the working group is comfortable with assuming the >convenience of global uniqueness for MAC addresses. > >In short, I think that the proposal to use link-local >addresses is problematic, and does not offer any clear >advantages over using host routes. Using unnumbered >interfaces for IPv4 is a somewhat different case, and as far >as I can tell it doesn't introduce terrible problems, but on >the other hand it doesn't provide any noticeable benefits >either as far as I can tell. And, to be honest, I didn't >think about this case very much so I might have overlooked something. > >Regards, >Charlie P. > > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 31 21:35:32 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPVxc-00070w-76; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:35:32 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPObW-0005su-E7 for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:44:14 -0500 Received: from mail3.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.123]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPObW-00083z-2k for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:44:14 -0500 Received: from mailout6.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.150]) by mail3.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:44:13 -0800 Received: from tuk-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.70.27]) by mailout6.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:44:12 -0800 Received: from win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.39]) by tuk-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:44:11 -0800 Received: from win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.5.41]) by win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:44:11 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:44:07 -0800 Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC116742E9A@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <013c01c654ef$c726e610$165cfa84@SEXTANT> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs Thread-Index: AcZUXj109ThDOJ+TRcSPfZRMJStFbAAjjfGgAAGXACA= From: "Dave Thaler" To: "Joe Macker" , "Templin, Fred L" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2006 18:44:11.0630 (UTC) FILETIME=[19FAF0E0:01C654F3] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:35:31 -0500 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: , Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org I agree with Joe. Injecting a default route from the border router(s) into the routing protocol in use is no different from injection of any other route from any other router, and it's orthogonal to the issue of how to number internal routers as discussed in the multisubnet-manets document. -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joe Macker [mailto:joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil]=20 Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 10:20 AM To: 'Templin, Fred L'; autoconf@ietf.org Cc: Dave Thaler Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs Fred/All: I know this question was addressed at Dave, but for at least proactive routing issues should addressed with some relationship to architecture. e.g., stub areas, totally stub areas, NSSA type, transit. So I think you have to first say what is the deployment scenario.=20 For stub or totally stub the border router(s) should proactively inject a default route. This is normal operation for things like MANET-OSPF and OLSR types of deployments. Other cases are more complex. Are there reasons why this should be different than normal intra-domain types of approaches? I see draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets as a valid subcase of what we can do. Is there some motivation why there is a difference here in default route injection approach? I guess I am thinking in terms of typical OSPF default route handling/deployment use cases. =20 Did you have something in mind or just curious? I think it's a good question, but I would like to see this discussion be more generally addressed and am presently hoping we could follow standard best practices where it makes sense. I'd also like to hear if someone has a reason why we should do something different. -Joe >-----Original Message----- >From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com]=20 >Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:59 PM >To: autoconf@ietf.org >Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com >Subject: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs > >Dave, > >I notice that 'draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets' >is silent on the subject of how MANET routers can configure=20 >and use a default route. Do you have any thoughts on this? > >Fred >fred.l.templin@boeing.com=20 > >_______________________________________________ >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 Fri Mar 31 21:35:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPVxx-000798-Eg; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:35:53 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPTEE-0005Lh-2n for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:40:30 -0500 Received: from maila.microsoft.com ([131.107.1.6] helo=mail1.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FPTEC-0004nb-NQ for autoconf@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:40:30 -0500 Received: from mailout6.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.150]) by mail1.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:40:27 -0800 Received: from tuk-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.70.27]) by mailout6.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:40:27 -0800 Received: from win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.169]) by tuk-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:40:27 -0800 Received: from win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.5.41]) by win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:40:27 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:39:43 -0800 Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1167D3A41@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE0@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Avoiding wasted address space in Multi-Subnet MANETs Thread-Index: AcZUXj109ThDOJ+TRcSPfZRMJStFbAAjjfGgAAeNczAAAP7OEAADT6Eg From: "Dave Thaler" To: "Templin, Fred L" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2006 23:40:27.0619 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D4B9B30:01C6551C] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:35:52 -0500 Cc: Subject: [Autoconf] RE: Avoiding wasted address space in Multi-Subnet MANETs 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 good way to avoid wasting space in a particular environment=20 like TRILL is to use a solution which does not involve=20 decrementing TTL. That is, a layer-2 (or 2.5) solution,=20 rather than a layer-3 solution. Once you start decrementing TTL, then you need /64s for all the reasons discussed at IETF and in the two relevant documents (support for all types of Ipv6 addresses (CGA, temporary addresses, etc), non-MANET-client support,=20 not breaking upper layer assumptions, etc.) -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 2:14 PM To: autoconf@ietf.org Cc: Dave Thaler Subject: Avoiding wasted address space in Multi-Subnet MANETs I like the idea of allocating subnet prefixes to MANET routers very much, but I have heard concerns voiced in other working groups (TRILL, in particular) that allocating an entire /64 prefix to a router that may use only a small fraction of the available address space is wasteful. I realize that /64 is the finest granularity for subnet assignment in IPv6, but it could be that not all routers in a MANET will need to allocate prefixes for the purpose of downstream delegation. Can there be a hybrid method whereby MANET routers that need to allocate prefix(es) for downstream delegation allocate as many /64s as they need and other MANET routers delegate a /128, i.e., a host route? (Those router that require prefixes for downstream delegation at a later time could always defer the delegation until such a time that the /64s are actually needed.)=20 Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf