Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 03 March 2009 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 8D0FD3A6938 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:32:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 ncBHYc+TniZT for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0843A68C3 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nephilia.intra.cea.fr (nephilia.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.33]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id n23FWZEP000539; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:32:35 +0100
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by nephilia.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n23FWT9d000753; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:32:30 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id n23FWTe3009175; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:32:29 +0100
Message-ID: <49AD4D8D.7070403@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:32:29 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HyungJin Lim <dream.hjlim@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>
In-Reply-To: <7e8d02d40902281906k3fd36f03ud329c1db2738221e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 15:32:12 -0000

Hello Hyung-Jin,

HyungJin Lim a écrit :
>> 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 ?

I think I can understand the classification you made above:
     -only-MANET
     -MANET-to-Internet and
     -MANET-to-MANET-to-Internet (three or more levels)

Alex

> 
> Hyung-Jin, Lim
> 
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list
>  Autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:Autoconf@ietf.org> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> 
>