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, 03 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.
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Paul Lambert
- [Autoconf] new charter Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing (was: new cha… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing (was: new cha… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- [Autoconf] radio neighbors in range Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] radio neighbors in range Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [Autoconf] practical addressing Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] radio neighbors in range Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] radio neighbors in range Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model HyungJin Lim
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Joe Macker
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] radio neighbors in range Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Joe Macker
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Joe Macker
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model Alexandru Petrescu
- [Autoconf] new charter Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] new charter Teco Boot