Subject: RE: default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs)

From: "Joe Macker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:12:51 -0400

Fred:

I agree regarding reactive vs. proactive.
Just trying to get it clear and avoid overgeneralization.

-Joe

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 4:32 PM
>To: Joe Macker; [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: default routes in MANETs (was: RE: [Autoconf] 
>Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs)
>
>Joe,
>
>In retrospect, it was more of a general question for the MANET 
>routing protocols than anything specific to Multi-Subnet 
>MANETs so I'm going to change the subject line. I agree that 
>with the proactive routing protocols the MANET border routers 
>can inject a default route into the routing protocol and it 
>propagates through the MANET just fine. (In fact, I now recall 
>that we did this with TBRPF back in the 2001-2002 timeframe as 
>I'm sure you have done with any proactive routing protocols 
>you may be using in your studies.)
>
>However, from reading the globalv6 proposal, it seems that the 
>landscape may be different for the reactive protocols. In 
>'draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-05.txt',
>sections 5.3 and 6 the authors assert that special handling is 
>needed in the reactive protocol case to establish a default 
>route and direct packets through a default gateway.
>
>In particular, since the reactive protocols do not maintain 
>complete topology information at each MANET router, globalv6 
>says that nodes sending packets via a particular MANET border 
>router must insert a routing header that names the final 
>destination and insert the address of the MANET border router 
>in the IPv6 destination address. This seems like it would 
>require a kernel hack to make it work.
>
>So its clear that this discussion is aside from the question 
>of Multi-Subnet MANETs, but it might be a differentiator 
>between reactive and proactive protocols from the standpoint 
>of Internet attachment.
>
>Fred
>[email-masked]  
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Macker [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 10:20 AM
>To: Templin, Fred L; [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs
>
>Fred/All:
>I know this question was addressed at Dave, but for at least 
>proactive routing issues should addressed with some 
>relationship to architecture.
>e.g., stub areas, totally stub areas, NSSA type, transit. So I 
>think you have to first say what is the deployment scenario. 
>
>For stub or totally stub the border router(s) should 
>proactively inject a default route.  This is normal operation 
>for things like MANET-OSPF and OLSR types of deployments.  
>Other cases are more complex. Are there reasons why this 
>should be different than normal intra-domain types of approaches?
>I
>see draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets as a valid 
>subcase of what we can do. Is there some motivation why there 
>is a difference here in default route injection approach?  I 
>guess I am thinking in terms of typical OSPF default route 
>handling/deployment use cases.
>  
>Did you have something in mind or just curious? I think it's a 
>good question, but I would like to see this discussion be more 
>generally addressed and am presently hoping we could follow 
>standard best practices where it makes sense.  I'd  also like 
>to hear if someone has a reason why we should do something different.
>
>-Joe
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:59 PM
>>To: [email-masked]
>>Cc: [email-masked]
>>Subject: [Autoconf] Configuring 'default' in Multi-Subnet MANETs
>>
>>Dave,
>>
>>I notice that 'draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets'
>>is silent on the subject of how MANET routers can configure and use a 
>>default route. Do you have any thoughts on this?
>>
>>Fred
>>[email-masked]
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Autoconf mailing list
>>[email-masked]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>
>
>

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