Subject: [Autoconf] Remarks on PS presentation

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:46:19 +0100

Hi Emmanual,

Thanks for your presentation.
I have some comments, maybe you could use it for updating the PS document.

Slide 2:
Please do not use MR for MANET Router. It is MNR.
There are some figures in manetarch, but not one with MNR and R. I do not
understand why this popped up.

Slide 4:
This is about a manet connected to different external networks.
Is this in-scope? It is not in manetarch or charter.
I suggest stick on Connected MANET and Standalone MANET.
Why using new term (subordinate)?

Slide 5:
Why using new term (autonomous)?

Teco.

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

---

From: "Ulrich Herberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:16:04 +0100

Hi Teco,

> Why using new term (autonomous)?

To these new terms: I think that they make more sense as a connected
network. What is actually a "connected network"? Connected to what?

To itself (in terms of graph theory: "an undirected graph that has a
path between every pair of vertices")? A MANET is certainly
"connected" in the terms of "connected component" as used in graph
theory. But every MANET is!

To an outside network? It certainly is... in fact, every MANET is as
soon as it has something attached to any of its interfaces (so also
the hosts attached to its non-MANET interface as described in the
manetarch draft)

To the Internet? What is the Internet? It could be defined as a
network of networks. There is no difference whether a MANET is
"connected" to the Internet or any other network (if there is a
difference between these two terms).

Instead, if we use the term "subordinated" MANET, this only means that
there is some superordinate network delegating a subprefix of it to
that MANET.  Whether this network belongs to the Internet or to a
private military network does not matter. Only when there is no
"subordinate" network attached, it makes sense to speak of an
"autonomous" MANET which means that there is no delegated prefix. So I
am in favour of these terms.

Ulrich

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:30:28 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teco Boot [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:46 AM
> To: 'Emmanuel Baccelli'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Autoconf] Remarks on PS presentation
> 
> Hi Emmanual,
> 

Agree.

> Why using new term (subordinate)?

Agree also; have tried working with this term (subordinate)
before, and the experience was that it becomes cumbersome
and with negative connotations when it creeps into the
literature.
 
> Why using new term (autonomous)?

No strong opinion on this one.

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Ulrich Herberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:35:25 +0100

comments inline

> and with negative connotations when it creeps into the

Can you explain this? Where and in which way can it become cumbersome?
This might be interesting to discuss.

Ulrich