Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Random MLA uniqueness

From: Shubhranshu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:29:18 +0530

Hello Teco, 

Please see below comments.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>

<snip>
 
> RFC4429 provides a formula for the upper limit:
>  Pb(n,k) <= 1-( [(n-k+1)/n] ^ [k-1] )
>  Pb(2^115,100000) <= 1-( [(2^115-100000+1)/2^115] ^ [100000-1] )
> I can't calculate the outcome. Has anyone a calculator with extreme long
> real numbers?
> 
> Maybe the problem is in the random number generator.
> Anyway, I think someone should work on address spoofing protection.
> Pspoofing >>>> Pb.
> Some of us will tell that their birthday is on the same day as someone else,
> and they save on treat.
> 
> Adding this information in problem statement?

If you (and others) think these should be added then I'd be fine too. But  
before that here are some of my thoughts. MLA is a specific solution for
local addresses for MANET nodes. Do you think it would be appropriate
to assume at this point that Autoconf will standardize MLA as its
solution ? Since unless you assume that (or at least show your 
inclination / biasness towards this approach), I can't understand how this
would help to include all these in the WG's problem statement document. 
Now, assume that finally the Autoconf WG standardizes this as solution. 
In that case, won't it be appropriate for that particular solution document
to provide all these details ?

Besides, concerns / problems related to these possible address conflict is
well understood and written. Please refer to the ULA RFC. 

- Shubhranshu

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

---

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:21:40 +0100

If this is all well understood and written down, and there are no problems,
what the hell are we doing in Autoconf?
1) shall we use random ULA on each node?
2) shall we use random subnet_ID?
3) How can we optimize for efficiency, e.g. compact transport using
PacketBB?

For 3), I can imagine someone comes up with a listen mode for capturing an
existing Global_ID and Subnet_ID, so the MLA transfer over PacketBB needs
only 64 bits (a win of 7 octets per address).
(oeps, I did;-)

I think this is the first an easiest part of Autoconf. I suggest moving
forward with this approach as quickly as possible.

As a second phase, we can work on looking at existing DHCP-PD solutions,
also for MLA usage. This would further optimize transport over PacketBB. I
am sure we can use this, I am not sure there are no problems or
restrictions.

Then we shall verify existing candidate solutions for MGA. I think this is
the tough one, as now we have to deal with requirements from ISPs. And even
in the most simple MANET (Alex his phone and laptop, using 3GPP, WiMAX and
Bluetooth) there are problems with selecting the MGA for sessions, as now we
have a relation between MGA and BR. I think in almost every real life MANET,
this problem occurs. In simulations or in lab environments, we can simply
disable all ingress filters and AAA.

By the way, ISPs are heavily involved in MIP / NEMO based solutions.
Listening to them can help us a lot.

Teco.

Van: Shubhranshu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 20 november 2007 14:59
Aan: Teco Boot
CC: [email-masked]
Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] Random MLA uniqueness

Hello Teco, 

----- Original Message ----- 

<snip>

 
 
- Shubhranshu

---

From: Shubhranshu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:59:56 +0900

Please see below:

> forward with this approach as quickly as possible.

hmm... now I am confused, "moving forward with this approach" ?
Weren't you talking about including some text for the PS I-D ? But now
seems you are proposing some solution !! Why do you think I pointed to
the ULA RFC, because I was talking about ULA (and not MLA, which COULD
be a specific MANET solution and exact format and other details are
yet to be specified, may be).

If you want to discuss solution specific details, using MLA, etc then
it would be better to start separate thread, preferably with a pointer
to the specific I-D or some relevant text.

Coming back to your original thoughts (refer to your first mail with
the same subject), as I said I'd be fine with including those or
similar text but first we need to clarify those questions that I sent
you before.

- Shubhranshu

---

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:21:56 +0100

Inline.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Shubhranshu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 20 november 2007 19:00
> Aan: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]

I do not prefer "making problems".
I want the PS to describe in detail what the current problems are, based on
what is needed (charter) and what available mechanisms can be used. We don't
need (and are not even allowed by the charter) do define something similar
than what we currently have.

After adding text in PS on using ULA for MLA, and we agreed on this text,
and only after that, I suggest moving forward with it.
Of course we could wait for describing problems with using DHCP and on
Internet connectivity, but I do not see a reason for waiting.
I you prefer to wait, I am fine. I wonder what and others think on this,
including co-chair and AD.

> to the specific I-D or some relevant text.

I have written one line on this in my Autoconf solution.
I am willing to help writing a WG document for it.

Teco.

---

From: Emmanuel Baccelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:57:48 +0100

> yet to be specified, may be).

I agree with Shubhranshu. What is this MLA that is being talked about 
here? Does it correspond to the definition in the PS? If so then this is 
not a solution. In any case let's concentrate on the problems, and not 
on the solutions just yet.

Emmanuel

---

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:05:13 +0100

Hi Emmanuel,

More on MLA and MGA terminology: please read charter, both address types are
referred in the text.

I don't care which terms are used, but I want specific terms for specific
usages.
GA is far from specific, e.g. MNN address, CoA, and HoA are all GA. Are they
all MGA? I don't think so.

Charter describes two additional attributes for MGA, added to GA:
Text: globally routable unique addresses. 
Additional attributes:
1) Unique. This excludes for example anycast.
2) Routable. This implies a relation with routing (or reachability, if you
want)

For the last one, a generated GA for being used could have two states,
routable or not routable. This depends on connectivity between MNR and the
BR, associated with that BR.

I think we should remove any essential difference between charter and
problem statement.

Teco.