From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 03 08:16:42 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQNz7-0000mY-U7; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:16:41 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQNz6-0000mT-Hh for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:16:40 -0400 Received: from balu2.urz.unibas.ch ([131.152.1.52]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQNz5-0007ot-3u for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:16:40 -0400 Received: from [10.147.66.180] (int-34-197.mobile.unibas.ch [131.152.34.197]) by balu2.urz.unibas.ch (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k33CGaVd013335 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 14:16:37 +0200 Message-ID: <44311228.6080509@unibas.ch> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 14:16:40 +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: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs References: <013c01c654ef$c726e610$165cfa84@SEXTANT> <442D7A72.9030703@iprg.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <442D7A72.9030703@iprg.nokia.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: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 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, Actually a serious issue with link-local addresses is that an address by itself does not identify the NIC that should be used to reach the target. That is, knowing just the address does not give enough information to reach the target node. That's why existing socket APIs require that the interface name/id is given if the dest address of a packet is link-local. For example if you do "ping6 fe80::1" on a Linux machine you'll get an error message. regards, Christophe Charles E. Perkins wrote: > > (...) > > 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. (...) _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 03 09:50:21 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQPRk-0000zj-Sb; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:50:20 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQPRj-0000ze-ES for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:50:19 -0400 Received: from balu2.urz.unibas.ch ([131.152.1.52]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQPRh-0003bo-W2 for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:50:19 -0400 Received: from [10.147.66.180] (int-34-69.mobile.unibas.ch [131.152.34.69]) by balu2.urz.unibas.ch (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k33DoGe9031606 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 15:50:16 +0200 Message-ID: <4431281B.3090504@unibas.ch> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:50:19 +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: autoconf@ietf.org References: <442A7F16.1070801@ac.upc.edu> In-Reply-To: <442A7F16.1070801@ac.upc.edu> 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 Subject: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses 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, I just submitted an Internet Draft about a subject that has been discussed on this mailing list quite a few times: generating manet-local addresses with IPv6 unique local unicast addresses. It is available there (also soon on ietf web site): Title: MANET Local IPv6 Addresses http://cn.cs.unibas.ch/people/cj/draft-jelger-autoconf-MLA-00.txt Actually I wanted to submit this draft for the last IETF meeting but I forgot that the deadline for 00 drafts was one week earlier than follow-up drafts. Note that the idea of using unique local unicast addresses (ULAs) was first discussed a long time ago (Feb. 2005). I recently decided to write this draft because I think ULAs offer a dead simple solution for MANET-local communications. Moreover the concept is very close to the current discussions around the multi-subnet draft from Dave Thaler so the timing is perfect. Comments are of course expected and welcome! regards, Christophe _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 03 10:12:58 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQPne-000762-HV; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:12:58 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQPnc-00075e-W3 for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:12:56 -0400 Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.83.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQPnc-0004Tj-MO for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:12:56 -0400 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 k33ECmZw002775; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:12:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from SEXTANT [132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.11.41) with SMTP id M2006040310125412399 ; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:12:54 -0400 From: "Joe Macker" To: "'Templin, Fred L'" , Subject: RE: default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:12:51 -0400 Message-ID: <01e801c65728$b1787e10$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+TRcSPfZRMJStFbAAjjfGgAAZlm8AAiJDcoA== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818ADE@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6d95a152022472c7d6cdf886a0424dc6 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: I agree regarding reactive vs. proactive. Just trying to get it clear and avoid overgeneralization. -Joe >-----Original Message----- >From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] >Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 4:32 PM >To: Joe Macker; autoconf@ietf.org >Cc: dthaler@microsoft.com >Subject: default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf] >Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs) > >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 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Macker [mailto:joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil] >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. > >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 Mon Apr 03 12:32:37 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQRyn-0008Qy-76; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:32:37 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQRym-0008Qt-JI for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:32:36 -0400 Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.96.56]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQRyl-0001w8-95 for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:32:36 -0400 Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com ([192.76.190.6]) by stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2.MG.10092003/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id LAA22189; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:32:22 -0500 (CDT) 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 k33GWMN10083; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:32:22 -0500 (CDT) 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); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:32:22 -0700 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] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:32:21 -0700 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE5@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <4431281B.3090504@unibas.ch> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Thread-Index: AcZXJY6NaQgo/HiaQ2GUMgCe6s1TbAAD7IGA From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Christophe Jelger" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2006 16:32:22.0343 (UTC) FILETIME=[2EEAC570:01C6573C] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5 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 Here are my comments on this draft: 1) Section 1, second paragraph, the sentence beginning: "Since MANET routing is flat (i.e., it creates /128 host routes)", I don't believe this assertion is necessarily true any longer now that we have the Multi-Subnet MANET approach. It is true that nodes that participate in a MANET routing protocol require a unique router ID (RID), but there is no requirement that this be a /128 host route or even an IP address for that matter. Suggest changing this sentence to say: "This extends the usage or ULAs to an extreme case where each MANET node is considered as being a site and subnet [1] by itself; i.e., MANET nodes do not necessarily need to share a network prefix for intra-MANET communications." 2) Section 3.1 seems to be redefining the format for ULAs, i.e., since the suggested prefix (FC00::/7) is the same as defined in [1] it doesn't seem legitimate to redefine the format in this document. Suggestions are to either use a different prefix for MLAs or investigate whether setting the 'L' bit to 0 could be used to extend the global ID field into the subnet ID to form a 56-bit Random ID field. 3) Section 3.1, first sentence, why not just cite (RFC4193, section 3.2)? 4) Section 3.2, second sentence, same comment as 1). Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com =20 -----Original Message----- From: Christophe Jelger [mailto:Christophe.Jelger@unibas.ch]=20 Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 6:50 AM To: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Dear all, I just submitted an Internet Draft about a subject that has been=20 discussed on this mailing list quite a few times: generating manet-local addresses with IPv6 unique local unicast addresses. It is available there (also soon on ietf web site): Title: MANET Local IPv6 Addresses http://cn.cs.unibas.ch/people/cj/draft-jelger-autoconf-MLA-00.txt Actually I wanted to submit this draft for the last IETF meeting but I=20 forgot that the deadline for 00 drafts was one week earlier than=20 follow-up drafts. Note that the idea of using unique local unicast addresses (ULAs) was=20 first discussed a long time ago (Feb. 2005). I recently decided to write this draft because I think ULAs offer a dead simple solution for=20 MANET-local communications. Moreover the concept is very close to the current discussions around the multi-subnet draft from Dave Thaler so the timing is perfect. Comments are of course expected and welcome! regards, Christophe _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Apr 03 12:48:42 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQSEM-0003SP-5m; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:48:42 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQSEK-0003SK-SJ for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:48:40 -0400 Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.32.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQSEH-0002Vm-HE for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:48:40 -0400 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 JAA15399; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:48:32 -0700 (PDT) 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 k33GmWN04257; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:48:32 -0500 (CDT) 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); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:48:26 -0700 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] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:48:25 -0700 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE7@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE5@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Thread-Index: AcZXJY6NaQgo/HiaQ2GUMgCe6s1TbAAD7IGAAAI/y4A= From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Templin, Fred L" , "Christophe Jelger" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2006 16:48:26.0862 (UTC) FILETIME=[6DD0B0E0:01C6573E] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed 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 > 3) Section 3.1, first sentence, why not just cite > (RFC4193, section 3.2)? Should be: "Section 3.2, first sentence ...". Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 03 16:13:28 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQVQW-0001TN-8b; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:13:28 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQVQV-0001TI-Pp for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:13:27 -0400 Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.83.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQVQU-00030F-Fn for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:13:27 -0400 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 k33KDGa1023443; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from SEXTANT [132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.11.41) with SMTP id M2006040316132115568 ; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:13:21 -0400 From: "Joe Macker" To: "'Templin, Fred L'" , "'Christophe Jelger'" , Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:13:19 -0400 Message-ID: <023c01c6575b$0c9aa660$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: AcZXJY6NaQgo/HiaQ2GUMgCe6s1TbAAD7IGAAAkMsWA= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE5@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f 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 >-----Original Message----- >From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] >Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 12:32 PM >To: Christophe Jelger; autoconf@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses > >Here are my comments on this draft: > >1) Section 1, second paragraph, the sentence beginning: >"Since MANET routing is flat (i.e., it creates /128 host >routes)", I don't believe this assertion is necessarily true >any longer now that we have the Multi-Subnet MANET approach. MANET approaches have supported prefix routes for awhile. So I agree. Also, you can create a hieararchy with MANET. Noone ever said it MUST be flat. At some point there usually is a hierarchy. We don't promote injecting host routes into the Internet and this can be easily misread. Possible usggestion "The technology MAY extend the ability to support intra-MANET flatness by improving scalability. I would suggest ID authors stay away from broad generalizations like Fred has pointed out in #1 and be specific about use cases. -Joe >It is true that nodes that participate in a MANET routing >protocol require a unique router ID (RID), but there is no >requirement that this be a /128 host route or even an IP >address for that matter. Suggest changing this sentence to >say: "This extends the usage or ULAs to an extreme case where >each MANET node is considered as being a site and subnet [1] >by itself; i.e., MANET nodes do not necessarily need to share >a network prefix for intra-MANET communications." > >2) Section 3.1 seems to be redefining the format for ULAs, >i.e., since the suggested prefix (FC00::/7) is the same as >defined in [1] it doesn't seem legitimate to redefine the >format in this document. Suggestions are to either use a >different prefix for MLAs or investigate whether setting the >'L' bit to 0 could be used to extend the global ID field into >the subnet ID to form a 56-bit Random ID field. > >3) Section 3.1, first sentence, why not just cite (RFC4193, >section 3.2)? > >4) Section 3.2, second sentence, same comment as 1). > >Fred >fred.l.templin@boeing.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Christophe Jelger [mailto:Christophe.Jelger@unibas.ch] >Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 6:50 AM >To: autoconf@ietf.org >Subject: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses > >Dear all, > >I just submitted an Internet Draft about a subject that has >been discussed on this mailing list quite a few times: >generating manet-local > >addresses with IPv6 unique local unicast addresses. > >It is available there (also soon on ietf web site): > > Title: MANET Local IPv6 Addresses > http://cn.cs.unibas.ch/people/cj/draft-jelger-autoconf-MLA-00.txt > >Actually I wanted to submit this draft for the last IETF >meeting but I forgot that the deadline for 00 drafts was one >week earlier than follow-up drafts. > >Note that the idea of using unique local unicast addresses >(ULAs) was first discussed a long time ago (Feb. 2005). I >recently decided to write > >this draft because I think ULAs offer a dead simple solution >for MANET-local communications. > >Moreover the concept is very close to the current discussions >around the > >multi-subnet draft from Dave Thaler so the timing is perfect. > >Comments are of course expected and welcome! > >regards, >Christophe > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 03 16:28:59 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQVfX-0003Az-Qh; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:28:59 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQVfW-0003Ar-JN for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:28:58 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.200]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQVfW-0003sD-BZ for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:28:58 -0400 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so1932752nzd for ; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:28:57 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ETWQSAFjVPtzM86wIRkpybgFQKpZogVyOYjTr2cMvXuS+RkAR3srGu8829dtmpjASjreuTjWTbfwVuLaveh4iwR9U1Odl64oCgAXPsw44sgCpbAZ19ZWDtFBY9+DA/E+fDG+51Qf4SOX6jogEUA1r/J5sjHlKnP5mgjmvSxupGQ= Received: by 10.36.119.4 with SMTP id r4mr3140399nzc; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.18.77 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 13:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <374005f30604031328p27e8c668kff859e47fa09496e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 13:28:57 -0700 From: "Ian Chakeres" To: "Dave Thaler" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RE: Avoiding wasted address space in Multi-Subnet MANETs In-Reply-To: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1167D3A41@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE0@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1167D3A41@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 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 Dave, I think that using L2/L2.5 is a viable approach for some solutions. For heterogeneous networks, especially those with heterogeneous links, a L3 solution is the best approach for MANET technology. I envision that in many networks there might even be several MANET protocols running at different layers simultaneously. I am not arguing for/against /64s. Ian FYI: The MANET routing protocols are able to operate with any prefix, including /128. On 3/31/06, Dave Thaler wrote: > A good way to avoid wasting space in a particular environment > like TRILL is to use a solution which does not involve > decrementing TTL. That is, a layer-2 (or 2.5) solution, > 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, > not breaking upper layer assumptions, etc.) > > -Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] > 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.) > > 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 Tue Apr 04 07:59:27 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQkBz-0004W9-4I; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:59:27 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQkBy-0004W0-5s for autoconf@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:59:26 -0400 Received: from balu2.urz.unibas.ch ([131.152.1.52]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQkBx-0001iq-P9 for autoconf@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:59:26 -0400 Received: from [10.147.66.180] (int-32-78.mobile.unibas.ch [131.152.32.78]) by balu2.urz.unibas.ch (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k34BxK55012624; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:59:21 +0200 Message-ID: <44325F9C.4070900@unibas.ch> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:59:24 +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: "Templin, Fred L" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses References: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE5@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE5@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.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: 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 Fred, Thanks for your comments. See my reply inline. regards, Christophe Templin, Fred L wrote: > Here are my comments on this draft: > > 1) Section 1, second paragraph, the sentence beginning: > "Since MANET routing is flat (i.e., it creates /128 host > routes)", I don't believe this assertion is necessarily > true any longer now that we have the Multi-Subnet MANET > approach. It is true that nodes that participate in a > MANET routing protocol require a unique router ID (RID), > but there is no requirement that this be a /128 host > route or even an IP address for that matter. Suggest > changing this sentence to say: "This extends the usage > or ULAs to an extreme case where each MANET node is > considered as being a site and subnet [1] by itself; > i.e., MANET nodes do not necessarily need to share a > network prefix for intra-MANET communications." As Joe also pointed out, I admit that boldly saying that "MANET routing is flat" is probably not the right way to go. I just wanted to point out that existing MANET routing protocols largely create /128 routes: prior to Dave's MANET-subnet proposal, flat routing had largely reached consensus. So yes this statement should be changed in the next version. > > 2) Section 3.1 seems to be redefining the format for > ULAs, i.e., since the suggested prefix (FC00::/7) is > the same as defined in [1] it doesn't seem legitimate > to redefine the format in this document. Suggestions > are to either use a different prefix for MLAs or > investigate whether setting the 'L' bit to 0 could > be used to extend the global ID field into the subnet > ID to form a 56-bit Random ID field. Setting the L bit to 0 is a good idea if one wants to distinguish ULAs from MLAs. Good point. > > 3) Section 3.1, first sentence, why not just cite > (RFC4193, section 3.2)? I'm not sure what you mean here, but address generation with ULAs is different because only the Global ID is randomly generated. The difference here is that the subnet ID is also randomly generated. > > 4) Section 3.2, second sentence, same comment as 1). fine. > > Fred > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 04 11:43:15 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQngZ-00057e-Kn; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:43:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQngZ-00057Z-48 for autoconf@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:43:15 -0400 Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.32.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQngX-00047B-OA for autoconf@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:43:15 -0400 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 IAA29018; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 08:43:09 -0700 (PDT) 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 k34Fh8N04460; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:43:08 -0500 (CDT) 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); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 08:43:01 -0700 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] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 08:43:00 -0700 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AEA@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <44325F9C.4070900@unibas.ch> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Thread-Index: AcZX3zh570itUGABRNmMk7PsO1fAlQAHlVGQ From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Christophe Jelger" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2006 15:43:01.0541 (UTC) FILETIME=[748DFD50:01C657FE] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 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 Christope, =20 >> 3) Section 3.1, first sentence, why not just cite >> (RFC4193, section 3.2)? > > I'm not sure what you mean here, but address generation with ULAs is=20 > different because only the Global ID is randomly generated. The=20 > difference here is that the subnet ID is also randomly generated. Right about Global ID vs. Global IP + subnet ID. What I was intending to refer to here was the sample code for random ID generation suggested in RFC4193, section 3.2.2 and the analysis in section 3.2.3). 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 Thu Apr 06 03:01:40 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FROUp-0002tH-Mq; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 03:01:35 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FROUo-0002tC-JD for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 03:01:34 -0400 Received: from pproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.166.183]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FROUn-0002qm-AK for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 03:01:34 -0400 Received: by pproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id z59so72274pyg for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 00:01:32 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=m8Cddxq4fuw4NxTaCFl/KBMdYp3OQwZI3bJMdtCGiAOWrMWyse5a5A/T7XX05LYjg4VbAi+F7k/xdyF2GEKzOk4ZlIMAVW4sfHIkBQ8P4UeBHf1OclCvmA6DTLGOJ9AOqT4DhPx8oLgVw7HXId+FW5DTwkM+kdKh3RQ0M66e6+k= Received: by 10.35.119.11 with SMTP id w11mr598460pym; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 00:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.111.15 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2006 00:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <27b513f80604060001v2ad53463s8f95e7d1e7af6ef5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:01:31 +0800 From: "Ong Hean Kuan" To: autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AEA@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <44325F9C.4070900@unibas.ch> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AEA@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248 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="===============1566082162==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --===============1566082162== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_13002_5899643.1144306891837" ------=_Part_13002_5899643.1144306891837 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Dear All: It seems to me Random ID + Interface ID to form a Unique ID, which is 120 bits. What is the purpose of separate it to Random ID and Interface ID ? Is the Random ID used to differentiate different MANETs ? That means nodes in the same MANET share the same Random ID ? On 4/4/06, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Christope, > > >> 3) Section 3.1, first sentence, why not just cite > >> (RFC4193, section 3.2)? > > > > I'm not sure what you mean here, but address generation with ULAs is > > different because only the Global ID is randomly generated. The > > difference here is that the subnet ID is also randomly generated. > > Right about Global ID vs. Global IP + subnet ID. What I was > intending to refer to here was the sample code for random ID > generation suggested in RFC4193, section 3.2.2 and the analysis > in section 3.2.3). > > Fred > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > -- Hean Kuan Ong Network Research Group School of Computer Science Universiti Sains Malaysia ------=_Part_13002_5899643.1144306891837 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Dear All:

It seems to me Random ID + Interface ID to form a Unique I= D, which is 120 bits. What is the purpose of separate it to Random ID and I= nterface ID ?

Is the Random ID used to differentiate different MANET= s ? That means nodes in the same MANET share the same Random ID ?

On 4/4/06, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
Christope,

>> 3) Section 3.1, first sentence, why not just cit= e
>> (RFC4193, section 3.2)?
>
> I'm not sure what you= mean here, but address generation with ULAs is
> different because o= nly the Global ID is randomly generated. The
> difference here is that the subnet ID is also randomly generated.<= br>
Right about Global ID vs. Global IP + subnet ID. What I was
inten= ding to refer to here was the sample code for random ID
generation sugge= sted in RFC4193, section=20 3.2.2 and the analysis
in section 3.2.3).

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

________= _______________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf



--
Hean Kuan Ong
Network Research= Group
School of Computer Science
Universiti Sains Malaysia ------=_Part_13002_5899643.1144306891837-- --===============1566082162== 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 --===============1566082162==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 06 04:30:13 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRPsb-0004yG-0C; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 04:30:13 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRPsZ-0004yB-NX for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 04:30:11 -0400 Received: from balu2.urz.unibas.ch ([131.152.1.52]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRPsX-0006YW-8d for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 04:30:11 -0400 Received: from [10.147.66.180] (int-34-20.mobile.unibas.ch [131.152.34.20]) by balu2.urz.unibas.ch (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k368U4x1027950; Thu, 6 Apr 2006 10:30:04 +0200 Message-ID: <4434D191.7010506@unibas.ch> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:30:09 +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: Ong Hean Kuan , autoconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses References: <44325F9C.4070900@unibas.ch> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AEA@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <27b513f80604060001v2ad53463s8f95e7d1e7af6ef5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <27b513f80604060001v2ad53463s8f95e7d1e7af6ef5@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: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac 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 Hi, First the random ID is generated according to some pseudo-random algorithm, maybe something as proposed in RFC 4193 (as suggested by Fred Templin). The interface ID is either a EUI-64 or if privacy is concerned it should be generated according to RFC 3041. The 64-64 split is the standard IPv6 way of assigning addresses to subnets and nodes. Second, and according to the scenarios of Dave Thaler's multi-subnet draft, a MANET node could act as a router for non-MANET clients which would share the router's /64 prefix but have a different interface ID. And to answer your last point, NO the (router) nodes in the same MANET would not share the same random ID. The idea is that the random ID is sufficiently large such that nodes can generate a /64 with a very high probability of uniqueness (such that strong DAD could be avoided). This is in contrast to Dave's proposal to assign a common site prefix to all MANET nodes. I think that assigning a site prefix introduces extra complexity because it requires coordination among the MANET nodes and in both cases (common site prefix or not) the routes would anyway be /64s. Now Dave's proposal is fine if a global site prefix is injected in the MANET, so one good point of his proposal is that the same scheme applies to both MANET-local and global addresses. regards, Christophe Ong Hean Kuan wrote: > Dear All: > > It seems to me Random ID + Interface ID to form a Unique ID, which is > 120 bits. What is the purpose of separate it to Random ID and Interface ID ? > > Is the Random ID used to differentiate different MANETs ? That means > nodes in the same MANET share the same Random ID ? > > On 4/4/06, *Templin, Fred L* > wrote: > > Christope, > > >> 3) Section 3.1, first sentence, why not just cite > >> (RFC4193, section 3.2)? > > > > I'm not sure what you mean here, but address generation with ULAs is > > different because only the Global ID is randomly generated. The > > difference here is that the subnet ID is also randomly generated. > > Right about Global ID vs. Global IP + subnet ID. What I was > intending to refer to here was the sample code for random ID > generation suggested in RFC4193, section 3.2.2 and the analysis > in section 3.2.3). > > Fred > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > > > > > -- > Hean Kuan Ong > Network Research Group > School of Computer Science > Universiti Sains Malaysia > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Apr 06 05:31:14 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRQpY-0006sc-Ok; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 05:31:08 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRQpX-0006sX-Mo for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 05:31:07 -0400 Received: from pproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.166.178]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRQpW-0000JY-8M for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 05:31:07 -0400 Received: by pproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id c30so84069pyc for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 02:31:05 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=claTRQ1WuFqCzjabyUdw+vG3QMehhW71nSe9+aS5z2daA+wJHGCF1Yrur7eCneUlQ+UtBcpc3wVvsSY/eJtAPQgJZpjCZxIXcMfDiBFaaFv3HHbG0XXg6UmbRWaDV0WxZgADVcs/PdllRMqG7a/mwSJWqV1aclsJ8HY3ojRNSGs= Received: by 10.35.81.10 with SMTP id i10mr96473pyl; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 02:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.111.15 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2006 02:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <27b513f80604060231k770849cx1d3599055eed7dbf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 17:31:05 +0800 From: "Ong Hean Kuan" To: "Christophe Jelger" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses In-Reply-To: <4434D191.7010506@unibas.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <44325F9C.4070900@unibas.ch> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AEA@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <27b513f80604060001v2ad53463s8f95e7d1e7af6ef5@mail.gmail.com> <4434D191.7010506@unibas.ch> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 16c9da4896bf5539ae3547c6c25f06a0 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: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0528266241==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --===============0528266241== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_14258_4361416.1144315865668" ------=_Part_14258_4361416.1144315865668 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Dear Christophe Jelger: On 4/6/06, Christophe Jelger wrote: > > Hi, > > First the random ID is generated according to some pseudo-random > algorithm, maybe something as proposed in RFC 4193 (as suggested by Fred > Templin). The interface ID is either a EUI-64 or if privacy is concerned > it should be generated according to RFC 3041. The 64-64 split is the > standard IPv6 way of assigning addresses to subnets and nodes. > > Second, and according to the scenarios of Dave Thaler's multi-subnet > draft, a MANET node could act as a router for non-MANET clients which > would share the router's /64 prefix but have a different interface ID. > > And to answer your last point, NO the (router) nodes in the same MANET > would not share the same random ID. The idea is that the random ID is > sufficiently large such that nodes can generate a /64 with a very high > probability of uniqueness (such that strong DAD could be avoided). That means Random ID is added 56 bits to improve the uniqueness of link-local address. That means even 2 nodes having same Interface ID still can be uniquely identify because they wouldn't have same random ID. If that is the case, i agree with you strong DAD could be avoided, but at least lightweigth address collision detection or weak DAD should be run parallely with routing protocol. For example if an attacker assign its node static ip to already used ip purposely, this may cause address duplication and consequently leads packets misroute. Would different pseudo-random algorithm have impacts on address uniqueness? Is this worth research? This is in contrast to Dave's proposal to assign a common site prefix to al= l > MANET nodes. I think that assigning a site prefix introduces extra > complexity because it requires coordination among the MANET nodes and in > both cases (common site prefix or not) the routes would anyway be /64s. > Now Dave's proposal is fine if a global site prefix is injected in the > MANET, so one good point of his proposal is that the same scheme applies > to both MANET-local and global addresses. > > regards, > Christophe > > Ong Hean Kuan wrote: > > Dear All: > > > > It seems to me Random ID + Interface ID to form a Unique ID, which is > > 120 bits. What is the purpose of separate it to Random ID and Interface > ID ? > > > > Is the Random ID used to differentiate different MANETs ? That means > > nodes in the same MANET share the same Random ID ? > > > > On 4/4/06, *Templin, Fred L* > > wrote: > > > > Christope, > > > > >> 3) Section 3.1, first sentence, why not just cite > > >> (RFC4193, section 3.2)? > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean here, but address generation with ULA= s > is > > > different because only the Global ID is randomly generated. The > > > difference here is that the subnet ID is also randomly generated= . > > > > Right about Global ID vs. Global IP + subnet ID. What I was > > intending to refer to here was the sample code for random ID > > generation suggested in RFC4193, section 3.2.2 and the analysis > > in section 3.2.3). > > > > Fred > > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Autoconf mailing list > > Autoconf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Hean Kuan Ong > > Network Research Group > > School of Computer Science > > Universiti Sains Malaysia > > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= - > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Autoconf mailing list > > Autoconf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > -- Hean Kuan Ong Network Research Group School of Computer Science Universiti Sains Malaysia ------=_Part_14258_4361416.1144315865668 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Dear Christophe Jelger:

On 4/6/06, = Christophe Jelger <Christophe.Jelger@unibas.ch> wrote:
Hi,

First the random ID is generated according to some pseudo-random=
algorithm, maybe something as proposed in RFC 4193 (as suggested by Fre= d
Templin). The interface ID is either a EUI-64 or if privacy is concern= ed
it should be generated according to RFC 3041. The 64-64 split is thestandard IPv6 way of assigning addresses to subnets and nodes.

Seco= nd, and according to the scenarios of Dave Thaler's multi-subnet
draft, = a MANET node could act as a router for non-MANET clients which
would share the router's /64 prefix but have a different interface ID.<= br>
And to answer your last point, NO the (router) nodes in the same MAN= ET
would not share the same random ID. The idea is that the random ID is
sufficiently large such that nodes can generate a /64 with a very high<= br>probability of uniqueness (such that strong DAD could be avoided).
That means Random ID is added 56 bits to improve the uniquenes= s of link-local address. That means even 2 nodes  having same Interfac= e ID still can be uniquely identify because they wouldn't have same random = ID. If that is the case, i agree with you strong DAD could be avoided, but = at least lightweigth address collision detection or weak DAD should be run = parallely with routing protocol. For example if an attacker assign its node= static ip to already used ip purposely, this may cause address duplication= and consequently leads packets misroute.
 
Would different pseudo-random algorithm have impacts on addre= ss uniqueness? Is this worth research?

This is in contrast to Dave's proposal to assign a common site prefix to al= l
MANET nodes. I think that assigning a site prefix introduces extra
= complexity because it requires coordination among the MANET nodes and in
both cases (common site prefix or not) the routes would anyway be /64s.=
Now Dave's proposal is fine if a global site prefix is injected in the<= br>MANET, so one good point of his proposal is that the same scheme applies
to both MANET-local and global addresses.

regards,
Christophe=

Ong Hean Kuan wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> It seems to = me Random ID + Interface ID to form a Unique ID, which is
> 120 bits.= What is the purpose of separate it to Random ID and Interface ID ?
>
> Is the Random ID used to differentiate different MANETs ? = That means
> nodes in the same MANET share the same Random ID ?
&g= t;
> On 4/4/06, *Templin, Fred L* < Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com
> <mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> wrote:
>
= >     Christope,
>
>   &n= bsp;  >> 3) Section 3.1, first sentence, why not just cite
>      >> (RFC4193, section 3.2)= ?
>      >
>   =    > I'm not sure what you mean here, but address generat= ion with ULAs is
>      > different = because only the Global ID is randomly generated. The
>      > difference here is that th= e subnet ID is also randomly generated.
>
>   &n= bsp; Right about Global ID vs. Global IP + subnet ID. What I was
>&nb= sp;    intending to refer to here was the sample code for ra= ndom ID
>     generation suggested in RFC4193, section 3= .2.2 and the analysis
>     in section 3.2.3).>
>     Fred
>     = fred.l.templin@boeing.com = <mailto: fred.l.templin@boeing.com&= gt;
>
>     _______________________________= ________________
>     Autoconf mailing list
&= gt;     Autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:Autoc= onf@ietf.org>
>     https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinf= o/autoconf
>
>
>
>
> --
> Hean Kuan Ong
> Network R= esearch Group
> School of Computer Science
> Universiti Sains M= alaysia
>
>
> -------------------------------------------= -----------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Au= toconf mailing list
> Autoconf@i= etf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
<= br>

--
Hean Kuan Ong
Network Research Group
= School of Computer Science
Universiti Sains Malaysia ------=_Part_14258_4361416.1144315865668-- --===============0528266241== 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 --===============0528266241==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 09 16:01:21 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSg65-0000qG-4D; Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:01:21 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSg63-0000qB-H1 for autoconf@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:01:19 -0400 Received: from xproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.82.197]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSg62-0004N2-BF for autoconf@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:01:19 -0400 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s12so554948wxc for ; Sun, 09 Apr 2006 13:01:17 -0700 (PDT) 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:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=BunEwJs09ihsFx7ntdVfK3mZAJLPpeS0ENaXQ64k8mD691joZuMaiWwvrXvtwK/R9US1b3DFCkNgm53rbex0iG+be72k03j2QHd8ziK8+fAjkVgzGZ4jAoT6A79kZMyZBdnYPyg/Bqn+SUzH/JsMx/N6DmfyElidbnmx9ylM+9Q= Received: by 10.70.108.19 with SMTP id g19mr4648107wxc; Sun, 09 Apr 2006 13:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.65.20 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 13:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <33535ea20604091301s27a7f204ud5ac9be776d46943@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 13:01:17 -0700 From: "Shoaib Rao" To: autoconf Subject: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 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, Reading this draft and the following discussion it's not clear to me *) Do we still need multiple subnets as proposed in draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets The above draft does not list any reason or sites any documents as to why a single link approach (option A) is a bad choice. *) Can manet router's other interfaces that need to communicate with other manet routers use MLA. The draft seems to imply that in the "address scope section". This would allow for a weak DAD. *) In case the mdelis multiple subnets how will the network prefix handled ? It can not be FC00::/7 or can it be. Regards, Shoaib. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 10 05:57:12 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSt8y-0001et-Iw; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:57:12 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSt8x-0001eo-Ge for Autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:57:11 -0400 Received: from maile.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.233.31]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSt8v-00018T-3S for Autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:57:11 -0400 Received: from ptpxch010ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.240.53]) by maile.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:57:07 +0200 Received: from PTPEVS108BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.241.228]) by ptpxch010ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:57:07 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Autoconfiguration implementations Importance: normal Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:57:06 +0200 Priority: normal Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Autoconfiguration implementations thread-index: AcZUKbj0Xiwpw0w5RS++a7lchSChVAIWqhqQ From: "Ruffino Simone" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2006 09:57:07.0378 (UTC) FILETIME=[20968920:01C65C85] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4fc59e88b356924367ae169e6a06365d Cc: Ana Bea Solana 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="===============0657149400==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0657149400== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C65C85.20162FAD" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C65C85.20162FAD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Ana, =20 We have a implementation of our solution (multi-gw) based on Linux = OLSRv1. =20 Currently (and unfortunately) it is not available in public domain. = Please, mail me in private if you're interested in working on it. =20 Thanks,=20 Regards, =20 Simone p.s. sorry for the late answer =20 =20 =20 =20 ________________________________ From: Ana Bea Solana [mailto:anabea01@gmail.com]=20 Sent: gioved=EC 30 marzo 2006 20.43 To: Autoconf@ietf.org Subject: [Autoconf] Autoconfiguration implementations =20 Dear all, =20 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)?=20 =20 Thanks all, =20 Ana Beatriz Solana -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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_001_01C65C85.20162FAD Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Ana,

 

We have a implementation of our solution (multi-gw) = based on Linux OLSRv1.

Currently (and unfortunately) it is not available in = public domain. Please, mail me in private if you’re interested in = working on it.

 

Thanks,

Regards,

 

Simone

p.s. sorry for the late = answer

 

 

 

 

From: Ana Bea Solana [mailto:anabea01@gmail.com]
Sent: gioved=EC 30 marzo = 2006 20.43
To: Autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: [Autoconf] Autoconfiguration implementations

 

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------=
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_001_01C65C85.20162FAD-- --===============0657149400== 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 --===============0657149400==-- From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 10 11:32:49 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSyNl-0005Nx-4S; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:32:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSyNj-0005Ns-LB for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:32:47 -0400 Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.32.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSyNj-0006sA-4X for autoconf@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:32:47 -0400 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 IAA07391; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:32:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 k3AFWcN12042; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:32:38 -0500 (CDT) 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); Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:32:38 -0700 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] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:32:37 -0700 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818B17@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <33535ea20604091301s27a7f204ud5ac9be776d46943@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Thread-Index: AcZcEGGt+nvUynNTT2uyjWuo8loClAAohyWw From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Shoaib Rao" , "autoconf" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2006 15:32:38.0598 (UTC) FILETIME=[FFBAEE60:01C65CB3] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 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 Shoaib, I think the document is saying that if you can treat the MANET as a single link by running the MANET routing protocol at L2 (option A), then there is no problem for existing protocols and applications. But, if you must run the MANET routing protocol at L3, then the multi-subnet MANET approach (option C) avoids potential issues brought on by treating it as a single subnet (option B). I believe this means that option A is the preferred approach and options B or C should be used only when necessary. As stated in section 1 (C), the remainder of the document concerns itself only with option C. Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com -----Original Message----- From: Shoaib Rao [mailto:shoaib.m.rao@gmail.com]=20 Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 1:01 PM To: autoconf Subject: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses Hi, Reading this draft and the following discussion it's not clear to me *) Do we still need multiple subnets as proposed in draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets The above draft does not list any reason or sites any documents as to why a single link approach (option A) is a bad choice. *) Can manet router's other interfaces that need to communicate with other manet routers use MLA. The draft seems to imply that in the "address scope section". This would allow for a weak DAD. *) In case the mdelis multiple subnets how will the network prefix handled ? It can not be FC00::/7 or can it be. Regards, Shoaib. _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Apr 11 02:04:17 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FTByz-00009E-Us; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:04:09 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FTByy-00007i-If for autoconf@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:04:08 -0400 Received: from xproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.82.200]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FTByu-00015l-AU for autoconf@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:04:08 -0400 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s12so818678wxc for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:04:03 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=d8gxw6Yy7Nq3cIHbQbiluoiQmTWujUCLD5uSwHkwXqvUmYxuenKQQuT/6B/lepMyL2775ySQdVTKlZKl6rS2ybqtJ7mOoCmJhEhTlHM1RtCUsgiylhuYPRl760cI2/fJyigpojk2kCFg1GTeI6FaOKVCK5YBWVD/r05019ixm+Y= Received: by 10.70.73.11 with SMTP id v11mr6427173wxa; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.65.20 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <33535ea20604102304i22db9fe9l4a77d25fedd34d49@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:04:03 -0700 From: "Shoaib Rao" To: "Templin, Fred L" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Multi-subnet manets and manet local addresses In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818B17@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <33535ea20604091301s27a7f204ud5ac9be776d46943@mail.gmail.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818B17@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Cc: autoconf 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 On 4/10/06, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Shoaib, > > I think the document is saying that if you can treat > the MANET as a single link by running the MANET routing > protocol at L2 (option A), then there is no problem for > existing protocols and applications. But, if you must run > the MANET routing protocol at L3, then the multi-subnet > MANET approach (option C) avoids potential issues brought > on by treating it as a single subnet (option B). > Thanks for clearing this up. > I believe this means that option A is the preferred > approach and options B or C should be used only when > necessary. As stated in section 1 (C), the remainder > of the document concerns itself only with option C. > Does this mean there will be two routing protocols. I hope not. It would be complicated to choose and mix the two. Shoaib. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 18 08:04:42 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVowj-0003MC-Vc; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:04:41 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVowi-0003M7-Pg for autoconf@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:04:40 -0400 Received: from p130.piuha.net ([193.234.218.130]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVowh-0001sE-G6 for autoconf@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:04:40 -0400 Received: from p130.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E79898BC; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:04:38 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED18898B8; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:04:38 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4444D5D6.3090902@piuha.net> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:04:38 +0300 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Templin, Fred L" Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Avoiding wasted address space in Multi-Subnet MANETs References: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE0@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818AE0@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 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 Templin, Fred L wrote: >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. > > For background, we have roughly similar "waste" in other contexts. For instance, in RFC 3314 the IETF recommended that cellular phones adopt a prefix-per-phone model. The benefits in that context included better operation with devices connected to the cellular phones (e.g. laptops with standard IPv6 stacks). Our current discussion sounds a bit familiar to that... but of course the numbers can be different, depending on what kind of deployment we expect. For cell phones it was in the billions. --Jari _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf