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$@nl> <49ADB1CC.4000704@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49ADB1CC.4000704@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:57:05 +0100
Message-ID: <000e01c99c5b$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. |> |> |> |> |>
- 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