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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 19 December 2008 15:53 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 6A85C3A69F6; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:53:16 -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 8D16D3A69F6 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:53:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, 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 t2yCy5bm9lgL for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:53:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E4383A6986 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:53:14 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1229701986!34196193!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=.,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [136.182.1.12]
Received: (qmail 23610 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2008 15:53:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO motgate2.mot.com) (136.182.1.12) by server-10.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 19 Dec 2008 15:53:06 -0000
Received: from il27exr02.cig.mot.com (il27exr02.mot.com [10.17.196.71]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id mBJFr6uI027525; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:53:06 -0700 (MST)
Received: from il27vts03 (il27vts03.cig.mot.com [10.17.196.87]) by il27exr02.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id mBJFr5Ri014851; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:53:05 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by il27exr02.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id mBJFr4Ye014831; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:53:05 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <494BC360.1000109@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:53:04 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
References: <be8c8d780812190119r200efceawef79c63766ea1a3f@mail.gmail.com> <494B8E7C.7000505@gmail.com> <be8c8d780812190504x98496egc37c25b21a799ceb@mail.gmail.com> <494BB75E.4050206@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D016C3E14@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <be8c8d780812190721r7ea9c43aif8aff7c83f44f43@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <be8c8d780812190721r7ea9c43aif8aff7c83f44f43@mail.gmail.com>
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 081218-0, 18/12/2008), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
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

Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) 
> <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com 
> <mailto:chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I think some solutions exist at PHY and MAC layers in the case of
> 802.11.
> 
> As has been said many times before, MANET is not just about 802.11.
> 
> 
> I think Chris makes an important point here. We are discussing things
>  experienced at the IP layer.

Observation should report the name of the link layer, otherwise a peer
may think the author logically extends what s/he sees on one link layer
to another (instead of experiencing same phenomena on each link layer
individually).

The scientist orders the frog to jump, who so does.  Then cuts its legs,
orders it again to jump; the frog obviously can't jump.  Scientist
deduces the frog can no longer hear.  However, if the order were issued
to the legs (instead of ears) in the first place then maybe the false
conclusion could have been avoided.

> The draft is not saying "there is a need for a solution". The draft 
> is saying "this is what is often observed". That's it. I think we can
>  agree on this ;)

I agree one may have observed this behaviour.  I don't agree it is an
often observed behaviour - I didn't.  I often observed wifi works ok in
the types of deployments described in the draft (R1,R2,A).

Alex

> 
> Emmanuel
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 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