Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model

[Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>]

Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
> Hello Alex,
>
> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> > So what would be the minimum packet sized for IPv6?
> You already know the answer to that, and you probably already
> know that some device drivers have to run adaptation software
> in order to manage transmission over media not supporting
> large packets.  And you certainly already know that it is possible
> to transmit IPv6 packets with size far less than the minimum MTU.

YEs yes, I'll give separately the context elsewhere when needed.

[...]
> > If the AUTOCONF link is such undefined such that even the MTU is unknown
> > then the stack has much problems sending packets on it.
>
> Not in my experience.

Did you experience receiving an RA with an MTU in it?  Did you 
discourage that to, because it depends on the link characteristics? 
(you==one)

[...]
> > But then, what does it mean "the only address assumed "on link" is the
> > address of that interface"?  Do you mean there is nobody else on that
> > link?  If there is nobody else on that link then it is an "off link",
> > per rfc4861 def of "off link".
>
> It means that you don't automatically know the layer-3 addresses
> of nodes reachable by that link.

Nobody said one would automatically know the L3 address of node on that 
link.  If having their MAC addresses, Inverse Neighbor Discovery may help.

What's the problem with that?

> Really, Alex, couldn't you figure this out?

No, really, I am completely lost.

That paragraph is completely un-parsable to me.

You refuse to have a common definition of a link, and this is not right.

> > Do you mean that all addresses in MANET link are off-link?
>
> No.

They're "on link", and they are the only ones assumed (by whom? by 
thesmelves?  by the authors?) to be on link.

What is this talking about?  IT's really unclear.

> > Really, however I struggle to read that phrase I can't parse.
>
> Try harder.

No, I stop here.  You try to explain that to whomever will ask you about 
it.  I no longer care.

[...]
> > Your use of neighbor... is it on purpose(?)... ND?  NHDP?
>
> You ought to know.  If not, then read the previously cited
> Baccelli/Perkins document.

No, I am fed up, really.  No negative intention but I am fed up.

> > Ha :-)  let's agree that saying "/128" is not saying "/10" - we can
> > agree on that, right?  I.e. saying "/128" excludes saying "/10".
>
> I'm not concerned with this, and don't care to
> state a position.

Well try to - saying that you use _only_ /128 means you don't use /10 
(LL) that's as clear as it gets.

> > > > I agree with this direction in general, when things are to be 
> > > > explored.  In the case of LLs things are widely used already,
> > > > tested, demonstrated, in a different way that you suggest.  Thus I
> > > > would suggest "MAY" in many places where you say link-local
> > > > address, and "MAY" where you say "/128 prefix".
> > >
> > >
> > > I think you and others should form a design team to formulate an
> > > addressing model for the subnets you want.  Be sure to explain why
> > > you need for the work you identify to be done within the [autoconf]
> > > working group.  Maybe you will be happy with DHCP and DAD and won't
> > > need to do anything more.
> >
> > Well, not for the moment.  For the moment let's do this document.
>
> I really think you ought to get with your colleagues into a
> task force.  You are not helping with this document, in my
> opinion.

No, I will get from your way without needing to get into a Task Force. 
I am completely fed up.

Yours,

Alex