Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

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
>