Subject: [Autoconf] Another addressing model for AUTOCONF

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:01:34 +0200

Addressing model we use, pdf 300Kb:

                  http://dl.free.fr/m95j1Km7a
(the username is left empty and password is 'password', without
  quotes.  File stays there for 30 days.)

Teco asked whether my draft contains an addressing model... true - it 
doesn't show so obviously
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-00).

I said that there is an addressing model in this figure of the draft:
>                            egress|              |egress
>              ----     ----    ----              ----     ----    ----
>             | LFN|   |LFN |  | MR |            | MR |   |LFN |  |LFN |
>              ----     ----    ----              ----     ----    ----
>                |        | ingress|              |ingress   |      |
>               ---------------------             ---------------------
>                    2001:1::/24                       2001:2::/24

ThomasC and Chris also expressed doubts with respect to LFN--MR--MR--LFN
topology and link-local addresses; let me explain further.

We are using this addressing model on several moving networks. See the 
pdf at the beginning of this email. They show MR-to-MR with a single 
addressing scheme, then with a double addressing scheme; (double is 
necessary for our plan.)

And then a slide shows MR-to-MR-to-MR addressing model.

There are some scalability remarks and a route propagation model (pencil
and paper).

The mechanism has been prototyped and demoed since about one year now,
on three Mobile Routers and a bunch of LFNs, which shows it may work. We
have great plans for demoing on vehicles.

This is an addressing model we consider strongly. It needs later to
auto-configure some prefixes, because currently MNPs are pre-configured
in each moving network (this is the case in some deployments).

This addressing model is important to us, and uses link-local addresses.

Alex

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:46:12 +0100

> topology and link-local addresses

That disrepresents what I said.

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:59:55 +0200

> That disrepresents what I said.

So please clarify - represent it better, I listen.

Alex

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:46:50 +0200

> That disrepresents what I said.

+1

ThomasC

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

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:58:32 +0200

Alex,

Quick comments:
Your example 2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24 share a common prefix.
Better use 2001:1::/32 and 2001:2::/32 or longer, e.g. /64.

On your presso: 
I would not use same ssid on APs in all vehicles. (slide 2, essid: "V3").
And I dislike the address spoofing mode, suggested in slide 4.
So it so +1 on others remarks.

Teco.

Op 22 jul 2010, om 23:01 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende geschreven:

> Teco asked whether my draft contains an addressing model... true - it doesn't show so obviously
> We are using this addressing model on several moving networks. See the pdf at the beginning of this email. They show MR-to-MR with a single addressing scheme, then with a double addressing scheme; (double is necessary for our plan.)
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:10:40 +0200

> Your example 2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24 share a common prefix.

WEll no, they are different prefixes, as implemented by IP stacks, as 
considered by the routing tables and their lookup algorithms, as 
considered by the ND tables.

> Better use 2001:1::/32 and 2001:2::/32 or longer, e.g. /64.

Why 32 instead of 24?

> I would not use same ssid on APs in all vehicles. (slide 2, essid: "V3").

Thanks for the comment.  It would indeed be good to have different 
ESSIDs within vehicles, in order to prevent potential interference.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:15:40 +0200

Why 32 instead of 24?

However, we have noticed that within a vehicle there is little chance 
that WiFi signal gets outside, because of shielding - hence no risk of 
interference.

> And I dislike the address spoofing mode, suggested in slide 4.

WEll no, I don't suggest any address spoofing mode.  What in slide4 
makes you think so?  I could explain. (see jpg attached).

> So it so +1 on others remarks.

It's still -1 on my side :-)

Alex

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:19:25 +0200

Alex,

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> WEll no, they are different prefixes, as implemented by IP stacks, as considered by the routing tables and their lookup algorithms, as considered by the ND tables.

2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24 are short forms for
2001:0001::/24 and 2001:0002::/24
(as defined in rfc2373)

So, I have to agree with Teco.  Maybe you meant 2001:100::/24 and 2001:200::/24?

Ulrich

> Thanks for the comment.  It would indeed be good to have different ESSIDs within vehicles, in order to prevent potential interference.
>
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:26:27 +0200

Le 23/07/2010 14:19, Ulrich Herberg a écrit :
>>> Quick comments: Your example 2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24 share a
>>> common prefix.
>>
>> WEll no, they are different prefixes, as implemented by IP stacks,
>> as considered by the routing tables and their lookup algorithms,
>> as considered by the ND tables.
>
>
> 2001:1::/24 and 2001:2::/24 are short forms for 2001:0001::/24 and
> 2001:0002::/24 (as defined in rfc2373)
>

Ah right... wrong notation in the slide.

(fyi in implementation we have 2002:0:8::/64 and then 9 and 10 instead
of 8 - it's that /64 distinguishing them).

Thanks for the remark I will update them.

Alex

>>> On your presso: I would not use same ssid on APs in all
>>> vehicles. (slide 2, essid: "V3").
>>
>>>> http://dl.free.fr/m95j1Km7a (the username is left empty and
>>>> password is 'password', without quotes.  File stays there for
>>>> 30 days.)
>>>>
I said that there is an addressing model in this figure of the draft:
>>>>>
>>>>> egress|              |egress ----     ----    ---- ----
>>>>> ----    ---- | LFN|   |LFN |  | MR |            | MR |   |LFN
>>>>> |  |LFN | ----     ----    ----              ---- ----
>>>>> ---- |        | ingress|              |ingress   | |
>>>> ThomasC and Chris also expressed doubts with respect to
>>>> LFN--MR--MR--LFN topology and link-local addresses; let me
>>>> explain further.
>>>>
>>>> We are using this addressing model on several moving networks.
>>>> See the pdf at the beginning of this email. They show MR-to-MR
>>>> with a single addressing scheme, then with a double addressing
>>>> scheme; (double is necessary for our plan.)
>>>>
>>>> There are some scalability remarks and a route propagation
>>>> model (pencil and paper).
>>>>
>>>> The mechanism has been prototyped and demoed since about one
>>>> year now, on three Mobile Routers and a bunch of LFNs, which
>>>> shows it may work. We have great plans for demoing on
>>>> vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> This is an addressing model we consider strongly. It needs
>>>> later to auto-configure some prefixes, because currently MNPs
>>>> are pre-configured in each moving network (this is the case in
>>>> some deployments).
>>>>
>>>> Alex _______________________________________________ Autoconf
>>>> mailing list [email-masked]
>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
>> list [email-masked]

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:23:01 +0200

Op 23 jul 2010, om 14:15 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende geschreven:

> WEll no, I don't suggest any address spoofing mode.  What in slide4 makes you think so?  I could explain. (see jpg attached).

You depict multiple addresses with FE80::FFFE_MAC1 and FE80::FFFE_MAC2.
You have dup L2 addresses (please destroy your stuff), or you spoof addresses (please don't).

Teco

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:34:13 +0200

Le 23/07/2010 15:23, Teco Boot a écrit :
>> WEll no, I don't suggest any address spoofing mode.  What in
>> slide4 makes you think so?  I could explain. (see jpg attached).
>
> You depict multiple addresses with FE80::FFFE_MAC1 and
> FE80::FFFE_MAC2. You have dup L2 addresses (please destroy your
> stuff), or you spoof addresses (please don't).

Ah yes sorry.  It is again wrong notation on my side.  "FE80::FFFE_MAC1"
is abbreviation to mean the link local address derived from that
interface's MAC address.

I do not mean to spoof any address from any interface to any other,
sorry for misunderstanding.

I could further explain if needed.  And I can change the slide if I ever
present in AUTOCONF... I am still unaware of any agenda and time is
short now.

Alex

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:55:52 +0200

> present in AUTOCONF... I am still unaware of any agenda and time is

OK, now you cleared up your proposal.
I think it is not new, and in line with IPv6 address architecture.
Your proposal highly relate to MEXT, MNP is provided with mechanisms defined in MEXT, isn't it?
So better leave it there.

Back to Autoconf: we are looking for solutions for configuring addresses / prefixes for nodes that require multi-hop communication, without restrictions for packet relaying via same interface, either for isolated MANETs and / or for MANETs connected to the Internet.

Teco.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:05:36 +0200

Le 23/07/2010 15:55, Teco Boot a écrit :
>> Ah yes sorry.  It is again wrong notation on my side.
>> "FE80::FFFE_MAC1" is abbreviation to mean the link local address
>> derived from that interface's MAC address.
>>
>> I could further explain if needed.  And I can change the slide if
>> I ever present in AUTOCONF... I am still unaware of any agenda and
>>  time is short now.
>
> OK, now you cleared up your proposal. I think it is not new, and in
> line with IPv6 address architecture.

WEll it is indeed not new, but different than the current addressing
model draft.

> defined in MEXT, isn't it?

Well no, not for the moment.  The MNP is provided I don't know how.  But
however provides that MNP must update routing.

> So better leave it there.

I will present there.

> Back to Autoconf: we are looking for solutions for configuring
> addresses / prefixes for nodes that require multi-hop communication,
> without restrictions for packet relaying via same interface, either
> for isolated MANETs and / or for MANETs connected to the Internet.

Ok, deserves another thread, but I don't understand your "without
restrictions for packet relaying via same interface".  My mechanism does
not relay packets via the same interface.

Alex

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:14:25 +0200

> not relay packets via the same interface.
You need "relaying via the same interface" for MANET autoconfiguration. Many 
MANET nodes only have a single interface.

Henning Rogge

-- 
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't leave the game.
— The Laws of Thermodynamics, summarized

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:26:12 +0200

> not relay packets via the same interface.

Here our interests divide.

Teco