Subject: Re: Hand Configuration of Ad Hoc Nets?

From: Charles Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:50:00 -0800 (PST)

Chip,

> I'm getting lost here. What on earth am I claiming
> is paramount? Why am I not interested in the general case?

I'm really not trying to be obnoxious.  Honest!  It's a
problem with e-mail ...

You said:
>--> Hopefully we can do that in MANET _without_ paying a big
>--> bandwidth price, but if we have to choose, I'd vote
>--> for something that is a HELL OF A LOT EASIER to set up
>--> than a typical IP network.

I thought that spelled paramount -- but I didn't mean to
slight your intention at all.

Of course, I'd like to have something as good as IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery.  I have ideas about how to set this up, but it _is_
a stretch, and it _does_ make the routing issues much harder
to figure out, and I wonder whether the working group can
realistically broaden its focus with good effect at this time.

To answer your second sentence, I claim that the general case
is not particularly amenable to dynamic address assignment.
But, hey, ... I might be wrong!

> I really only have one dog in this race, which is that
> IP networks have historically been pretty hard to configure,
> and I hope we can do better with ad hoc networks.

Well, yes, but ...

IP networks have also been historically unable to deal with
rapidly reconfigurable link topologies, and also unable to
deal with networks for which the subnet aggregation model
may not apply.  I'm only pointing out that maybe we ought
to try to solve the routing problem first.  I claim to be among
the people _most interested_ in solving the zero-administration
problem (witness RFC2165 and DHCPv6), but here, it worries me
right now in 1998.

> No, I'll strengthen that a bit. One measure of scalability
> is how LIKELY is it that you can gather 'n' nodes together
> and have them correctly form a network. If every sys admin
> "back home" has to type in consistent routing parameters, the
> chances that a 10-node truly Ad-Hoc network will work... well,
> what would you say?

This point is very well taken.  So my model is that you run
DHCP on the nodes while they're hooked to the Internet, and
then don't munge the IP address while your away from your
normal stomping grounds.  Nobody _really_ wants to do manual
configuration, but the ultimate in dynamic assignment might
be like the end of the rainbow.  But, hey, ... I might be wrong!

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Chip Elliott <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 23:22:45 -0500

Charlie et al,

One last go-round and then I'm finished. (I say this
sincerely, but of course one never knows...!)

Address configuration is only one part of the whole
ad-hoc configuration puzzle. There are many other
horrible issues, such as compatible timer settings
for the routing protocols, etc etc. To avoid making
something unnecessarily unpleasant, can the draft
writers please describe, for their routing protocols:

-- what configuration is required

-- how that configuration will take place

-- what happens if things are misconfigured

I agree that we can't possibly solve all the problems
of the world in the MANET group. However, maybe we
can avoid introducing a few more problems, needlessly.

-- Chip

PS. Charlie, I doubt if anyone who's met you could ever
even think that you were trying to be obnoxious!

PPS. Too many routing protocols have punted on the
configuration issue. OSPF is pretty bad, BGP verges
on the nightmarish. We should not add add to this
sorry state through sheer, willful narrow-sightedness.

PPPS. "Ease of configuration" is not an option!
No, I didn't say this, and no, I'm not serious.

>I'm really not trying to be obnoxious.  Honest!  It's a
...
>realistically broaden its focus with good effect at this time.
...
>I'm only pointing out that maybe we ought