IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 19 December 2008 12:19 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 BE0C43A68E3; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:19:44 -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 3C68B3A6829 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:19:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.369, 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 fwTqynnEJZVH for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:19:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml19.kpnxchange.com (hpsmtp-eml19.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.84]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E653A6819 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:19:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml103.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.84.103]) by hpsmtp-eml19.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:19:34 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml103.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:19:33 +0100
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: 'Alexandru Petrescu' <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <be8c8d780812190119r200efceawef79c63766ea1a3f@mail.gmail.com> <494B8E7C.7000505@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D016C3D54@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <494B9035.40405@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <494B9035.40405@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:19:30 +0100
Message-ID: <005701c961d4$0b1fbc40$215f34c0$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Aclh02XCpVP2uuBxQcqhmW3P7uu20wAAFSQQ
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2008 12:19:33.0458 (UTC) FILETIME=[0CECDB20:01C961D4]
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

|>>> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email