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

"Teco Boot" <> Wed, 25 February 2009 07:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BFF93A6B55 for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:11:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.046
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jmZMI8XtViQT for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:11:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (cpsmtpo-eml03.KPNXCHANGE.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB573A6B51 for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:11:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:12:02 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:12:01 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <>
To: "'Thomas Heide Clausen'" <>, "'Rex Buddenberg'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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:, 'Emmanuel Baccelli' <>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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).


|-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|Van: [] Namens
|Thomas Heide Clausen
|Verzonden: dinsdag 24 februari 2009 23:06
|Aan: Rex Buddenberg
|CC:; Emmanuel Baccelli
|Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless
|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.
|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
|In other'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?
|Autoconf mailing list