Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Tue, 03 March 2009 23:56 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 748213A6959 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 15:56:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.424, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
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 Kcvixu4h7n8m for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 15:56:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml16.kpnxchange.com (hpsmtp-eml16.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F083A6AB6 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 15:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml103.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.84.103]) by hpsmtp-eml16.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:57:05 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml103.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:57:04 +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> <000b01c99c48$3a34ffa0$ae9efee0$@nl> <49ADB1CC.4000704@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49ADB1CC.4000704@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:57:05 +0100
Message-ID: <000e01c99c5b$c16e2d30$444a8790$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmcUQqL/q/Tw3AFSP+QVKsjATyB5gABuWTQ
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2009 23:57:04.0914 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0E7BF20:01C99C5B]
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 23:56:45 -0000

I'll think more on Internet access. The diagrams were meant for MANET intra
topology. I would not use private addresses for this. For IPv4, all link
addresses could be LL also (169.254.0.0/16). 

On names in the tables: assume (m)DNS, with A, B and C resolved by it. OK?

On metrics / costs, pick the term you like. I am assuming nothing, I use the
term metric where others use cost (or mixed usage, as below in the diagrams
/ text). Sample below uses metric where I would use hopcount. 

I just play a bit with some protocols on some platforms. Here a (part off a)
routing table snapshot from one of the toys (OLSRv1 adjusted with ETX and
Link Costs):

               OLSR Routes in Kernel
Destination		Gateway	 Metric	Cost		Interface
10.128.12.0/24	169.254.1.12	1	725.000	ath0
10.128.13.0/24	169.254.1.13	1	630.303	ath0
10.128.14.0/24	169.254.1.14	1	622.727	ath0
10.128.15.0/24	169.254.1.15	1	671.429	ath0
10.128.16.0/24	169.254.1.16	1	973.594	ath0
10.128.17.0/24	169.254.1.17	1	749.285	ath0
10.128.18.0/24	169.254.1.18	1	766.667	ath0
10.128.19.0/24	169.254.1.19	1	663.244	ath0
10.128.20.0/24	169.254.1.20	1	958.831	ath0
10.128.21.0/24	169.254.1.16	2	1853.594	ath0
10.128.22.0/24	169.254.1.16	2	1754.594	ath0
10.128.23.0/24	169.254.1.16	2	1836.594	ath0
10.128.24.0/24	169.254.1.16	2	1662.594	ath0
10.128.25.0/24	169.254.1.16	2	1939.594	ath0
10.128.26.0/24	169.254.1.26	1	637.633	ath0
10.128.27.0/24	169.254.1.27	1	629.622	ath0
10.128.28.0/24	169.254.1.28	1	710.918	ath0
10.128.29.0/24	169.254.1.29	1	737.511	ath0
10.128.30.0/24	169.254.1.30	1	817.725	ath0

Metrics and cost do not have a need to be "published" in the kernel RT.

On this toy, LL are multihop reachable (bad behavior !!):

169.254.1.21	169.254.1.16	2	1853.594	ath0
169.254.1.22	169.254.1.16	2	1754.594	ath0

Teco.



|-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|Van: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
|Verzonden: dinsdag 3 maart 2009 23:40
|Aan: Teco Boot
|CC: autoconf@ietf.org
|Onderwerp: Re: Autoconf addressing model
|
|Teco, I'm happy you updated the obstacles scenario.  That's important
|insight on what movement may actually be.
|
|I'd go further include default routes in the tables, and specific
|addresses like 10.1.1.1/32 instead of A, and subnet prefixes 10.1.1.0/24
|for example.
|
|Sorry just asking about this: the Cost in the routing tables.  The
|kernel routing tables don't have variable Cost, they're all metric 1 I
|believe (all next-hops are 1-hop away).  The routing protocols' tables
|may have Cost and other variables.
|
|Did you assume a routing protocol?
|
|My preference is to not assume any routing protocol.
|
|Alex
|
|Teco Boot a écrit :
|> 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.
|>
|>
|>
|>
|>