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

["Teco Boot" <[e-mail]>]

Oeps, I forgot to include a minor adjustment on "First":

c/C/B/
 First, there is no guarantee that a router B within S can,
 symmetrically, send IP packets directly to router A. In other words,
 even though B 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 B.
 Thus, multi-hop ad hoc wireless communications may be "asymmetric".
 Such asymmetry is often experienced on multi-hop ad hoc wireless
 networks, due to well-known properties of wireless communication.

Above "First", routers A and B are introduced. Here, A "sends" 
and B "hears". OK for me. 
In "First", the same topology is used: A "sends" and B "hears".

For "Second", I introduced routers C and D for non-transitive, 
as B was used for asymmetry. 
B, C and D are in set S.

===========

> yes I agree, the term "non-transitive" was not very straightforwardly 
> used. Saying as you propose would be better, more precisely (correct 
> me if I'm mistaken about what you meant), that if:
>   C and A can hear each other through A's interface, and,
>   A and D can hear each other through A's interface, then
>   it does not mean that C can hear D or that D can hear C

Yes, this is correct.
You introduced "interface". More complete text:
 C and A can hear each other through A's and C's interface to 
 network N, and
 A and D can hear each other through A's and D's interface to 
 network N, then
 it does not mean that C can hear D or that D can hear C through 
 C's and D's interface to network N.

Maybe check I-D text on "node".
Example: "router A is reachable from node B"
c/node/router/  ?? 
Except first quote: "node equals router", section 2, 1st paragraph.

Teco.

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf