Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 25 February 2009 07:11 UTC
Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 4BFF93A6B55 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:11:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 jmZMI8XtViQT for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:11:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtpo-eml03.kpnxchange.com (cpsmtpo-eml03.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.152]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB573A6B51 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:11:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml110.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.168.110]) by cpsmtpo-eml03.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:12:02 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml110.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:12:01 +0100
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: 'Thomas Heide Clausen' <ietf@thomasclausen.org>, 'Rex Buddenberg' <budden@nps.navy.mil>
References: <be8c8d780902230203k5f0ffb38m97d817aff9d95554@mail.gmail.com> <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D01489D135@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com> <49A2E90E.10808@earthlink.net> <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D01489D24B@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com> <49A431E9.3010401@earthlink.net> <49A44459.9020400@nps.navy.mil> <A2C9E004-FCB4-4F1B-8B3A-BED197498B2D@thomasclausen.org>
In-Reply-To: <A2C9E004-FCB4-4F1B-8B3A-BED197498B2D@thomasclausen.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:11:56 +0100
Message-ID: <002901c99718$57cf1c10$076d5430$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmWy9v7qfeCb60fR1SyEj4AF/0MXgAS8yIw
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2009 07:12:01.0140 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A939340:01C99718]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, 'Emmanuel Baccelli' <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on 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/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:11:44 -0000
Minor comment: I would compare an OLSR Router with an OSPF Router with an DYMO Router and with an RIP Router, just to come up with a few protocols. I would not compare an OSPF Router with an MANET Router, this doesn't make sense, an OSPF Router could be a MANET Router. I think MANET is a term for a category of routing protocols, similar to link state protocols (but an orthogonal category). Teco. |-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- |Van: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] Namens |Thomas Heide Clausen |Verzonden: dinsdag 24 februari 2009 23:06 |Aan: Rex Buddenberg |CC: autoconf@ietf.org; Emmanuel Baccelli |Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless |communication | | |On Feb 24, 2009, at 20:02 PM, Rex Buddenberg wrote: | |> Charlie, |> |> Paul has a reality check point and its worthwhile understanding |> this because missing the point has made both MANET and autoconf |> harder than they need to be ... IMHO. It's also made them less |> relevant to what I think I see in the future. |> My background is analyzing information systems in DoD and emergency |> services ... why are they not interoperable (or, in the rare |> inverse instance, why are they interoperable)? |> |> In dealing with some DoD bureaucracy, I'm finding that they don't |> understand the implications of the differences between LANs and |> WANs. And by MANET stating that every end system is also a |> router, we equally obfuscate the point. |> | |<SNIP> | |I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. I'll try to |clarify it, if I can... | |In an OSPF-routed network, for all that OSPF cares about, every |"system is [an OSPF] router". That doesn't preclude that an OSPF |router may have interfaces towards other entities, called hosts -- |but as such hosts do not take part in routing (and in the routing |protocol), they're just not relevant when talking about OSPF. | |In a MANET-routed network, all systems that the MANET routing |protocols care about are.....MANET routers. That doesn't preclude |that a MANET router may have interfaces towards other entities, |called hosts -- but as such hosts do not take part in routing (and in |the routing protocol), they're just not relevant when talking about |MANETs. | |In other words.....it's perfectly fine to hang an Ethernet hub or an |802.11 access point or whatnot off of a MANET router, assign a prefix |to that link, hang hosts on that link -- and use the MANET routing |protocols to exchange that prefix such that these hosts are routable/ |reachable. It's not just perfectly fine, that's what MANET routing |protocols are build to do ;) | |I'd actually make the exact opposite point of the one you're making, |Rex: every end system is a host -- intermediate systems running MANET |protocols are routers. Hosts are unaware of if they're hanging off a |MANET, OSPF, ISIS or other router -- they just see a classic IP link |and an IP hop and likely a default route. The MANET, OSPF, ISIS or |other router deals with the "routing stuff", including |characteristics of links to other routers. Hosts never see that. This |is as it should be. | |Occasionally, a system in a MANET may in the same physical box have a |logical router and a host present. This isn't that unusual either |for non-MANET networks. | |So when we talk about systems being routers in MANETs, then it's |simply because the systems that "we care about" are the routers. |Hosts are hanging off (some of) these routers just fine, over classic |IP links -- over which the usual slew of protocols works just fine |(fortunately -- so we do not have to care about that ;) ). | |What MANETs are concerned with are MANET routers and their |interconnect to other MANET routers. Interconnect from MANET routers |to hosts is no different from interconnect from a host to, say, an |OSPF router. | |Does this help? | |Thomas | |_______________________________________________ |Autoconf mailing list |Autoconf@ietf.org |https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
- [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop … Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Paul Lambert
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Paul Lambert
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Paul Lambert
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-… Teco Boot