Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Mon, 02 March 2009 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 28CF83A6AEB for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 03:00:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.375
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 pS6KIcRr9F8B for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 03:00:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA483A6994 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 03:00:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: HyungJin Lim <dream.hjlim@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7e8d02d40902281906k3fd36f03ud329c1db2738221e@mail.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> <1235828619.6096.24.camel@localhost> <49A94589.9050203@gmail.com> <7e8d02d40902281906k3fd36f03ud329c1db2738221e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-FlVs0DmgXNdSvfmJrTOk"
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:01:13 +0100
Message-Id: <1235991673.5456.13.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-5.6.0.1016-16494.006
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:00:51 -0000

Hi,

	I think we should address both the MANET connected and MANET
disconnected scenarios. Whether there are NEMOs involved or not (MANEMO
issues) is probably a topic that can be addressed later, once we have a
clear picture of the simplest cases, IMHO (I agree MANEMO is an
interesting topic).

	Regards,

	Carlos

El dom, 01-03-2009 a las 12:06 +0900, HyungJin Lim escribió:
> inline..
> 
> 2009/2/28, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>;: 
>         Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano a écrit :
>         [...]
>                         It doesn't matter how many ad hoc segments
>                         there are. In the following
>                         scenario, the link to Access router G
>                         disappeared, Router 3 disappeared and
>                         a Router4 joined IBSS "adhoc1".
>                         
>                         
>                         
>                             ---+-------Internet------
>                                |                            |
>                         +-------+-------+      |Access Router H|
>                         +-------+-------+                |
>                                            ||Prefix information H
>                              |V                     wifi "adhoc1"
>                                |
>                         <---------------------------v-------->
>                          <------|--v---------------------->
>                         |
>                          |<-|--------------------v-----------------------|--->
>                                |  |                    |
>                         |
>                            +---+--'+               +---'---+
>                         +---'---+
>                            |Router1|>-------------<|Router2|
>                         >-------------<|Router4|
>                            +---L---+ LL1      LL21 +---L---+ LL22
>                          LL4 +---L---+
>                                |M1                     |M2
>                         |M4
>                                |H1                     |H2
>                         |H4
>                         
>                                      --------->
>                         --------->
>                                      Prefix information H     Prefix
>                         information H
>                         
>                         
>                         Now, Router2 acts as a relay for Router4, so
>                         Router4 can reach Router1 and
>                         the Internet. Router1 acts as Border Router
>                         for all nodes in the MANET.
>                         
>                 
>                 While I think this is also much in linee with my
>                 thinking, I think it's
>                 better to focus on the simplest cases before.
>         
>         What are the simplest cases? 
>  
>    I think we can divided into two category in MANET scenario as
> follows.
>  
>         Category 1 
>             Scenario 1: "MANET to Internet", in case, depths of nested
> routers(NEMO)  is under three levels.
>                            This is practical case in real world (i.e.,
> most scenarios in real world)
>          Scenario 2: "MANET to Internet", depths of nested routers is
> more than three levels.
>                              (i.e., perhaps disaster situation,
> etc.. )
>  
>        Category 2 (scenario 3) 
>                            : "Only MANET", in case, the network does
> not has a connectivity to Internet.
>                              (i.e., peer-to-peer network, etc..)
>    
>      Requirement of address model we need is different according with
> considered scenario I think.
>      Then some scenarios included in category 2 not needs topological
> meaningful address. 
>  
>       Which area is AUTOCONF want to pinpoint ? 
>  
>       I think AUTOCONF should satisfy requirements between pure MANET,
> NEMO and MANEMO 
>       that can compose of mesh network, although we discussed about
> the difference between MANET, NEMO and MANEMO
>      
>       Moreover, these networks can has some impacts due to mobility
> pattern, wireless coverage and any other situations. AUTOCONF
> Addressing model can make a important role to efficient and secure
> aspects.
>  
>      What do you think about my comments ?
>      
>    Hyung-Jin, Lim
>  
>         Alex
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Autoconf mailing list
>         Autoconf@ietf.org
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>         
> 
-- 
 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
 GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  WEEDEV 2009: 2nd Workshop on Experimental Evaluation and
        Deployment Experiences on Vehicular networks
                  http://www.weedev.org/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++