IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] aspects of multi-hop wireless communication

Rex Buddenberg <budden@nps.navy.mil> Fri, 19 December 2008 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <autoconf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: autoconf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABDC28C165; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:39:34 -0800 (PST)
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 B977828C165 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:39:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 1jUZxTgvC90F for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from virginia.nps.edu (virginia.nps.edu [205.155.65.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147A628C163 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.58.162] ([172.20.58.162]) by virginia.nps.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:39:22 -0800
From: Rex Buddenberg <budden@nps.navy.mil>
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <005701c961d4$0b1fbc40$215f34c0$@nl>
References: <be8c8d780812190119r200efceawef79c63766ea1a3f@mail.gmail.com> <494B8E7C.7000505@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D016C3D54@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <494B9035.40405@gmail.com> <005701c961d4$0b1fbc40$215f34c0$@nl>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:46:27 -0800
Message-Id: <1229708787.29772.142.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2008 17:39:22.0920 (UTC) FILETIME=[BABC6280:01C96200]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, 'Emmanuel Baccelli' <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org

Cleanest example is in satellite communications where several pipes are
out-and-out one-way.  



On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:19 +0100, Teco Boot wrote:
> |>>> First, there is no guarantee that a router C within S can,
> |>>> symmetrically, send IP packets directly to router A. In other words,
> |>>> even though C can "hear" packets from node A (since it is a member
> |of
> |>>> set S), there is no guarantee that A can "hear" packets from node C.
> |>
> |>> Sorry, could one mention why?  What's the example of this?
> |>
> |> The simplest example (but by no means the only) is different power
> |> levels transmitted by A and C.
> |
> |And isn't it the same for wired communications ?  (and would a potential
> |solution to this to have the same power levels transmitted by A and C?)
> 
> One other reason is noise levels.
> 
> Alex, if you can provide a noise suppression device, please send me one.
> 
> Teco.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email