Subject: [Autoconf] Per request of scenarios

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:29:14 +0100

During the AUTOCONF WG meeting I asked whether we consider including 1
or more more precise scenarios of mobility in the Problem Statement
discussion.

I meant to say how do the mobiles move, how are they structured. I'm
suggesting discussing with figures as support. One possible figure is
the following (extracted from an expired draft of MANEMO):

                 Vehicle 1                          Vehicle 2

     egress|                            egress|
         ----     ----    ----              ----     ----    ----
        | MR |   |LFN |  |LFN |            | MR |   |LFN |  |LFN |
         ----     ----    ----              ----     ----    ----
    ingress|        | Ether |          ingress|        | Ether |
          ---------------------              ---------------------
               2001:1::/24                        2001:2::/24

The two vehicles connect their egress interfaces; the LFNs (Local Fixed
Node) don't move with respect to their respective MR (Mobile Router).
The vehicles move independently, and at one point meet and stay 
connected for a while. LFN in one vehicle needs to talk to another LFN 
in another vehicle.  There's no Internet connectivity and the boxes need 
to run widely IPv6 available software.

This is the kind of scenario I was asking whether it deserves inclusion
in discussion of problem statement. There are more MANEMO scenarios
discussed during the MANEMO pre-BoF.

Should we include this above scenario in the AUTOCONF discussion? Should
we discuss AUTOCONF scenarios in this way?

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

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

---

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:48:48 +0100

Hi Alex,

I wonder what AUTOCONF facility is helpful for this scenario.
Both vehicles are provisioned with MNP and routing can exchange this prefix
information. LL addresses on egress interfaces can be used for the routing
protocol.
What is missing?

General remark: I prefer discussing problems on well defined scenarios. But
only if we have to. 

Teco.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 4 december 2007 4:29
> Aan: [email-masked]
> Onderwerp: [Autoconf] Per request of scenarios
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:01:36 -0800

Teco Boot wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> I wonder what AUTOCONF facility is helpful for this scenario. Both 
> vehicles are provisioned with MNP and routing can exchange this 
> prefix information. LL addresses on egress interfaces can be used for
>  the routing protocol. What is missing?

I agree with you saying MNP provisioned on vehicles and LL addresses
used on egress interfaces.  What is missing is a widely available piece
of software that puts one router's MNP in the other router's routing
table.  This should be easily implementable as a simple extension of
widely available software.

In a sense, it is not about auto-configuring addresses.  It is maybe
about AUTOCONFing some routes in the routing table, but probably a
stretch as such.

> General remark: I prefer discussing problems on well defined 
> scenarios. But only if we have to.

Well, above is a scenario.  One may discard it as not enough challenging
- ok with that.  Or maybe not in the AUTOCONF charter - ok with that too.

Alex