Subject: [Int-area] Re: AUTOCONF charter

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:48:15 +0100

(This is a re-send to the Autoconf list - sorry about that,
but it keeps the disussion together.)

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins
> Well, I am not really able to speak for the wide diversity of people
who are
> interesting in making the proposed working group, but I was
characterizing
> that group of people as "we".  So let's call them "twdopwaiimtpwg".

As one of twdopwaiimtpwg, I think this has made the key points
(a) There is prior art - lots of it - for the whole MANET multi-hop
    subnet approach (RFC 2501 dates from 1999).
(b) Whilst I would agree that creating a new successor to RFC 2501
    would be worthwhile, it's not a "stop everything until you have"
    issue.

One additional point I'd note, is that MANETs attached to the
Internet are almost exclusively viewed as stub networks (for
reasons of bandwidth and reliability at the least). This mostly
isolates any unusual features of MANETs from the Internet even
if they were an issue (which they don't appear to be). The
most obvious problem that a MANET could cause to the wider
Internet is use of non-aggregated addresses, putting undue
strain on routing tables. But this is a driving force of the
Autoconf work, which if adopted will remove this possibility.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:47:03 -0700 (PDT)

>     subnet approach (RFC 2501 dates from 1999).

Just re-read RFC 2501, and  I don't see mention of "multi-hop subnets". 
Can you point out where this is described? 

> reasons of bandwidth and reliability at the least). 

Is it an assumption that a MANET will only function as a stub network, or 
is it an enforceable restriction?  For example, is there a mechanism 
that can be used to prevent a MANET from becoming attached at multiple 
points, becoming a transit network?