Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

HyungJin Lim <dream.hjlim@gmail.com> Mon, 02 March 2009 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dream.hjlim@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 4070328C0DE for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 04:25:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 TRo1qTCxz+DR for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 04:25:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A25F3A68E6 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 04:25:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 11so2761070tim.25 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 04:25:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ntyRN8kvZy/ZhDTuhM2LNcSs4w3Sag6NgjPV4qEYPLg=; b=Aes8KjcgaOT5psnDD7Ajkh3FHobWpZo/hDGC+pb3pdM743ytjuziUxS+/38VF9yka4 XSf++b/599iHS5D/jea1KjGpMOLKl3y/QHhTmc9Im/HxAsrdIXl8M6XTcA4Egk2iSUx1 ePV6DL2RvVd55CFeTa3IlXUbR2nh9GOamh6k8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=kZpD0be7hQenLvaHWSNdM2GNhmXEaoyzplGE+LXVPaioxWZw45bwmwGQI26+B5r2QG lV4RELNmrLZTlEeGwS8Klv0XOQQu3G0gpRend38cSqqOlNbCYjXg1rJ3JcaQ1hs8cnD4 R+Dnm4KXGeYcoIQ4moBZzKeAitSx0MARHc/iM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.110.61.16 with SMTP id j16mr3325416tia.23.1235996725215; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 04:25:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <003701c99b2e$af2d43f0$0d87cbd0$@nl>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl> <1235828619.6096.24.camel@localhost> <49A94589.9050203@gmail.com> <7e8d02d40902281906k3fd36f03ud329c1db2738221e@mail.gmail.com> <003701c99b2e$af2d43f0$0d87cbd0$@nl>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:25:25 +0900
Message-ID: <7e8d02d40903020425g8ea4893sd7ac9773378bb600@mail.gmail.com>
From: HyungJin Lim <dream.hjlim@gmail.com>
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f01e5ec00238046421e92d
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:25:02 -0000

Hi
See inline
2009/3/2 Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>

> Hi,
>
> I think nested-NEMO is handled by MEXT. As soon as the NEMO-RO requirement
> documents are finalized we could check how MANET protocols fit and if there
> is a need for an optimized MANET protocol for NEMO (e.g. MANEMO).
>

I see !! I will expect the phase you address, in MEXT.

>
> For the nested-NEMO addressing model, I am not aware of problems.
> Problems are introduced when the Mobile Network is a MANET, where nodes
> come
> and go and prefix information is sent to (multiple) home agents
> dynamically.


   Right !

>
> The MANET Routing protocol may run over the MRHA tunnel, but this could
> introduce high overhead, especially if metrics are introduced and metrics
> dampening & hysteresis is not implemented.


  From this point you are describing, there are some issues in relation to
address strategy, packet forwarding/routing, and etc. Then MANET routing
protocol can make a proper role in those situation I think.


>
> There could be some issues with MANET + NEMO + multi-homing.
>

I agree.  Your this comment is the one of major issues we should resolve.
I think address configuration strategy will affect on these situations.

At that time, if I need, I will participate to this discussion.

Thanks for your comment.


>
> Regards, Teco
>
>
>
>
> ===============
> Van: HyungJin Lim [mailto:dream.hjlim@gmail.com]
> Verzonden: zondag 1 maart 2009 4:06
> Aan: Alexandru Petrescu
> CC: cjbc@it.uc3m.es; teco@inf-net.nl; autoconf@ietf.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
>
> inline..
> 2009/2/28, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>om>:
> 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
>
>
>