Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication

"Teco Boot" <> Wed, 25 February 2009 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B8B3A6A08 for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:16:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.471
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.575, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b1gt+Wi-Lqi7 for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:16:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (cpsmtpo-eml04.KPNXCHANGE.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5A23A69EC for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:16:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:16:32 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:16:32 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <>
To: "'Emmanuel Baccelli'" <>
References: <> <002d01c99722$dcf7f650$96e7e2f0$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <002d01c99722$dcf7f650$96e7e2f0$@nl>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:16:26 +0100
Message-ID: <002e01c99729$bc956350$35c029f0$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmVnhGiMXawDw5IQfWe0r6wHqKGywBhKxcgAAAKjUA=
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2009 09:16:32.0062 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF97CDE0:01C99729]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:16:14 -0000

Thanks for the updated draft.
Here some feedback:

On exposed node: I do not understand what is mentioned here. I think the
exposed node problem is communication from A to B (correct) and C to D
(reverse direction of arrow). With CSMA, transmit from C is delayed because
C noticed carrier busy caused by transmit from A (or CSMA/CA virtual carrier
sense by CTS from B) . The delay was not needed, as C transmission does not
affect B reception of frame transmitted by A.
I think exposed node is more a research problem and less an operational

On Hidden Terminal: I think this __is__ an operational problem, but handled
in some or many cases by a media access mechanism, like CSMA/CA or TDMA.
Some / many cases implies "not all" cases, e.g. CSMA/CA does not work for
multicast. And multicast may be of large importance in MANETs, e.g. MANET
routing protocol flooding.

I suggest swapping the two problems, mentioning the important one first.

The draft emphasizes problems introduced by limited radio range. Note that
it has also a welcome characteristic, that is spatial reuse. Be positive on
wireless communication one time ? :-)

Once again, I think:
  - We may say that router B is a neighbor of router A. In this
  terminology, there is no guarantee that router A is a neighbor of
  router B, even if router B a neighbor of router A.
is incorrect. B hears A and I would say A is a neighbor of A and A is listed
in B's neighbor table.
Is there a reason not to update the text, as we agreed on before?


|-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|Van: [] Namens
|Emmanuel Baccelli
|Verzonden: maandag 23 februari 2009 11:04
|Onderwerp: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless
|Hi all,
|following the fruitful discussions about initial version of the
|here is an update to the draft describing aspects of multi-hop wireless
|Again, the goal of this document is to identify a consensus about this
|topic, and then use this to move on quicker with the rest of the work...
|Please review it, and provide feedback as soon as possible.