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