Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Tue, 03 March 2009 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D6A3A6911 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:36:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.191
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.618, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_LITTLE=1.555, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MANGLED_LIST=2.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YJaC5sL0d9OM for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:36:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml19.kpnxchange.com (hpsmtp-eml19.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.84]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62DEE3A687A for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:36:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml109.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.168.109]) by hpsmtp-eml19.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:37:18 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml109.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:37:18 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: "'Alexandru Petrescu'" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <7E8A76F7-2CE0-463A-8EE8-8877C46B4715@gmail.com> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl> <49A7E58C.2020303@gmail.com> <007201c99903$c4182c80$4c488580$@nl> <49A82E55.10208@gmail.com> <007b01c99911$907facf0$b17f06d0$@nl> <49A8471E.6090506@gmail.com> <009501c99920$92154340$b63fc9c0$@nl> <49A944FF.9000102@gmail.com> <003001c99b2c$a3fcf4a0$ebf6dde0$@nl> <49AD5184.6080300@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49AD5184.6080300@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:37:18 +0100
Message-ID: <000b01c99c48$3a34ffa0$ae9efee0$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmcF6OekugF+0urQ6S/vp/5EAtfMAAJPiUg
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2009 21:37:18.0256 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A114B00:01C99C48]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:36:52 -0000

Hi Alex,

I included wrong routing table info in the "obstacles" scenarios.
Here a full set of diagrams with routing table info.

I removed "STA-", now the model applies to non-802.11 topologies as well.

Teco.




1.  MANET topology with moving and blocking obstacle

          +------------------------+   +------------------------+
          |                        |   |                        |
          |           ______B      |   |           ______B      |
          |       ___/      |      |   |       ___/             |
          |      A          |      |   |      A       OBSTACLE  |
          |      '--_       |      |   |      '--_              |
          |          '------C      |   |          '------C      |
          |  OBSTACLE              |   |                        |
          +------------------------+   +------------------------+
              1-1: Full connected          1-2: B-C via A

          +------------------------+   +------------------------+
          |                        |   |          O             |
          |           ______B      |   |          B      B      |
          |       ___/      |      |   |          S      |      |
          |      A      OB  |      |   |      A   T      |      |
          |            ST   |      |   |          A      |      |
          |           AC    C      |   |          C      C      |
          |         LE             |   |          L             |
          |                        |   |          E             |
          +------------------------+   +------------------------+
               1-3: A-C via B          1-4: A-B and A-C blocked


   The routing tables for the MANET Routers look as follows:

        ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP COST    ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP COST
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |
       |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |
       |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   A   |  2 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   C   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   C   |   A   |   A   |  1 |
       |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |       |   B   |   B   |  2 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
             1-1: All single hop             1-2: B-C degraded

       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |   A   |       |       |    |
       |       |   C   |   B   |  2 |  |       |       |       |    |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   B   |       |       |    |
       |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   C   |   A   |   B   |  2 |  |   C   |       |       |    |
       |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
              1-3: A-C degraded           1-4: A-B and A-C blocked



2.  MANET topology with moving and degrading obstacle

    In these scenarios, link metrics are introduced.

          +------------------------+   +------------------------+
          |                        |   |                        |
          |          _______B      |   |           ______B      |
          |       __/ 1     |      |   |       __/ 1     .      |
          |      A          | 1    |   |      A        obstacle |
          |      '--_ 1     |      |   |      '--_ 1     . 5    |
          |          '------C      |   |          '------C      |
          |  obstacle              |   |                        |
          +------------------------+   +------------------------+
               2-1: No hindrance            2-2: B-C degraded

          +------------------------+   +------------------------+
          |                        |   |          o             |
          |           ______B      |   |       5  b .....B      |
          |       ___/ 1    |      |   |       ...s.     |      |
          |      A      ob  | 1    |   |      A   t      | 1    |
          |       ...  st   |      |   |       ...a.     |      |
          |       5  .ac.... C     |   |       5  c .....C      |
          |         le             |   |          l             |
          |                        |   |          e             |
          +------------------------+   +------------------------+
             2-3: A-C degraded          2-4: A-B and A-C degraded


   The routing tables:

        ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP COST    ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP COST
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |
       |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |
       |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   A   |  2 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   C   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   C   |   A   |   A   |  1 |
       |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |       |   B   |   A   |  2 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
              2-1: No hindrance               2-2: B-C degraded

       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |   A   |   B   |   B   |  5 |
       |       |   C   |   B   |  2 |  |       |   C   |   C   |  5 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   B   |   A   |   A   |  5 |
       |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
       |   C   |   A   |   B   |  2 |  |   C   |   A   |   A   |  5 |
       |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |
       +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
             2-3: A-C degraded          2-4: A-B and A-C degraded

   In this scenario, the most optimal paths are used, a 2-hop path with 
   metric 2 is used instead of a single hop path with metric 5.



3.  MANET topology with degrading obstacle and noise

    In this scenario, C can hear A through an obstacle as scenario 2-3,
    but A reception of B and C is affected by high level "NOISE" (3.1) 
    or low level "noise" (3-2). With high level noise, A cannot hear C and 
    the link is "uni-directional".

    Term "asymmetric" is used to indicate unbalanced metrics for the
direction
    of traffic between two nodes. In other documents, "asymmetric" is used
for
    what is called "uni-directional" here.


          +------------------------+   +------------------------+
          |                        |   |                        |
          |           ____1_B      |   |           ____1_B      |
          |       3__/      |      |   |       2__/      |      |
          |      A       ob | 1    |   |      A      ob  | 1    |
          | NOISE      st   |      |   | noise ...  st   |      |
          |         x.ac.>..C      |   |      10  .ac....C      |
          |         le             |   |         le     5       |
          +------------------------+   +------------------------+
           3-1: A-C uni-directional     3-2: A-C & B-C asymmetric
                A-B asymmetric  


      ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP METRIC    ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP METRIC
     +-------+-------+-------+------+  +-------+-------+-------+------+
     |   A   |   B   |   B   |    3 |  |   A   |   B   |   B   |    2 |
     |       |   C   |   B   |    4 |  |       |   C   |   B   |    3 |
     +-------+-------+-------+------+  +-------+-------+-------+------+
     |   B   |   A   |   A   |    1 |  |   B   |   A   |   A   |    1 |
     |       |   C   |   C   |    1 |  |       |   C   |   C   |    1 |
     +-------+-------+-------+------+  +-------+-------+-------+------+
     |   C   |   A   |   B   |    2 |  |   C   |   A   |   B   |    2 |
     |       |   B   |   B   |    1 |  |       |   B   |   B   |    1 |
     +-------+-------+-------+------+  +-------+-------+-------+------+
           3-1: A-C uni-directional     3-2: A-C & B-C asymmetric
                A-B asymmetric  

   When the noise level near station A is intermitting between high and low 
   levels, this does not influence the routing topology, as the MANET
protocol 
   has selected path A-B-C between the routers A and C, because better
metrics
   and bidirectional validation.
   The MANET Routing Protocol checks directionality of links before using
these.