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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 19 December 2008 18:01 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 5F7113A6A24; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:01:57 -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 CACBB3A6A24 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:01:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.178
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.421, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 KavWT-ys76XH for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com (mail153.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E00623A69F7 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:01:54 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1229709706!7495091!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=.,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [136.182.1.15]
Received: (qmail 14677 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2008 18:01:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO motgate5.mot.com) (136.182.1.15) by server-5.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 19 Dec 2008 18:01:46 -0000
Received: from il27exr03.cig.mot.com (il27exr03.mot.com [10.17.196.72]) by motgate5.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id mBJI1f0D021399; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:01:41 -0700 (MST)
Received: from il27vts02.mot.com (il27vts02.cig.mot.com [10.17.196.86]) by il27exr03.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id mBJI1eS7016455; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:01:40 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.129.40.88]) by il27exr03.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id mBJI1cGa016426; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:01:39 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <494BE182.9040302@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:01:38 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rex Buddenberg <budden@nps.navy.mil>
References: <be8c8d780812190119r200efceawef79c63766ea1a3f@mail.gmail.com> <494B8E7C.7000505@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D016C3D54@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <494B9035.40405@gmail.com> <005701c961d4$0b1fbc40$215f34c0$@nl> <1229708787.29772.142.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1229708787.29772.142.camel@localhost.localdomain>
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 081218-0, 18/12/2008), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org

Rex Buddenberg wrote:
> Cleanest example is in satellite communications where several pipes
> are out-and-out one-way.

Hi Rex, sorry, I don't know the terms.  But I could legitimately ask
about the name of the link layer for out-and-out one-way.

I think I know about some specs for IP over uni-directional links (UDLR)
and some implementations for it.

Alex

> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf