Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

HyungJin Lim <dream.hjlim@gmail.com> Mon, 02 March 2009 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <dream.hjlim@gmail.com>
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 344173A6AC3 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 04:44:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.255
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6]
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 DnuD7iwAUodf for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 04:44:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.185]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 573B83A6BF6 for <Autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 04:44:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 11so2765627tim.25 for <Autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 04:44:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hKa52uRyGBPQ3vL6I00h27qW4lDP3oV25ZVh+YNmFqc=; b=m7UyQsAQya/VVcudi4Zrr1tSMhckOlxFDadv2friSygmxrDpLprdrYzf2nTbfQ8ZlD d2qUHV7Ukw9tqE7V2vskQ/6YNqkRmJhClCu1ossfos1taqahV13aX9vTHEGNmn5iLQZ9 U9Z/oAYfpfw9qICyhp81M4bcbQpHsb5dxDr6w=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=s69OrvER1PBFaJVq/Tp1rIZHL7V1v4dz5UV1p3vjxxbHc+95NFCHRQXbOL/lxAEgJQ unPHvWvFEZDvPtFAs+qnQodGwLAFJlhyxxqidMvRBZZoxxBJWw930lMG3UUoJivNhaHQ g3pcx5lquIxjxMNmH3WXp4vRCApQ+c8ii8jFs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.110.3.15 with SMTP id 15mr8675598tic.0.1235997873628; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 04:44:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1235991673.5456.13.camel@localhost>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl> <1235828619.6096.24.camel@localhost> <49A94589.9050203@gmail.com> <7e8d02d40902281906k3fd36f03ud329c1db2738221e@mail.gmail.com> <1235991673.5456.13.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:44:33 +0900
Message-ID: <7e8d02d40903020444p2c4baea4qf94318444b08d6a9@mail.gmail.com>
From: HyungJin Lim <dream.hjlim@gmail.com>
To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f4225e3365880464222ea3
Cc: Autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:44:13 -0000

Hi,

...inline..

2009/3/2 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>

> Hi,
>
>        I think we should address both the MANET connected and MANET
> disconnected scenarios.


  Okey !!
  If need, I also will participate on this discussion for MANET and MANEMO.


> Whether there are NEMOs involved or not (MANEMO
> issues) is probably a topic that can be addressed later, once we have a
> clear picture of the simplest cases, IMHO (I agree MANEMO is an
> interesting topic).
>

Thanks,
Hyung-Jin, Lim

       Regards,

       Carlos

El dom, 01-03-2009 a las 12:06 +0900, HyungJin Lim escribió:

>  > inline..
> >
> > 2009/2/28, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>om>:
> >         Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano a écrit :
> >         [...]
> >                         It doesn't matter how many ad hoc segments
> >                         there are. In the following
> >                         scenario, the link to Access router G
> >                         disappeared, Router 3 disappeared and
> >                         a Router4 joined IBSS "adhoc1".
> >
> >
> >
> >                             ---+-------Internet------
> >                                |                            |
> >                         +-------+-------+      |Access Router H|
> >                         +-------+-------+                |
> >                                            ||Prefix information H
> >                              |V                     wifi "adhoc1"
> >                                |
> >                         <---------------------------v-------->
> >                          <------|--v---------------------->
> >                         |
> >
>  |<-|--------------------v-----------------------|--->
> >                                |  |                    |
> >                         |
> >                            +---+--'+               +---'---+
> >                         +---'---+
> >                            |Router1|>-------------<|Router2|
> >                         >-------------<|Router4|
> >                            +---L---+ LL1      LL21 +---L---+ LL22
> >                          LL4 +---L---+
> >                                |M1                     |M2
> >                         |M4
> >                                |H1                     |H2
> >                         |H4
> >
> >                                      --------->
> >                         --------->
> >                                      Prefix information H     Prefix
> >                         information H
> >
> >
> >                         Now, Router2 acts as a relay for Router4, so
> >                         Router4 can reach Router1 and
> >                         the Internet. Router1 acts as Border Router
> >                         for all nodes in the MANET.
> >
> >
> >                 While I think this is also much in linee with my
> >                 thinking, I think it's
> >                 better to focus on the simplest cases before.
> >
> >         What are the simplest cases?
> >
> >    I think we can divided into two category in MANET scenario as
> > follows.
> >
> >         Category 1
> >             Scenario 1: "MANET to Internet", in case, depths of nested
> > routers(NEMO)  is under three levels.
> >                            This is practical case in real world (i.e.,
> > most scenarios in real world)
> >          Scenario 2: "MANET to Internet", depths of nested routers is
> > more than three levels.
> >                              (i.e., perhaps disaster situation,
> > etc.. )
> >
> >        Category 2 (scenario 3)
> >                            : "Only MANET", in case, the network does
> > not has a connectivity to Internet.
> >                              (i.e., peer-to-peer network, etc..)
> >
> >      Requirement of address model we need is different according with
> > considered scenario I think.
> >      Then some scenarios included in category 2 not needs topological
> > meaningful address.
> >
> >       Which area is AUTOCONF want to pinpoint ?
> >
> >       I think AUTOCONF should satisfy requirements between pure MANET,
> > NEMO and MANEMO
> >       that can compose of mesh network, although we discussed about
> > the difference between MANET, NEMO and MANEMO
> >
> >       Moreover, these networks can has some impacts due to mobility
> > pattern, wireless coverage and any other situations. AUTOCONF
> > Addressing model can make a important role to efficient and secure
> > aspects.
> >
> >      What do you think about my comments ?
> >
> >    Hyung-Jin, Lim
> >
> >         Alex
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Autoconf mailing list
> >         Autoconf@ietf.org
> >         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> >
> >
> --
>   Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
>  GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  WEEDEV 2009: 2nd Workshop on Experimental Evaluation and
>        Deployment Experiences on Vehicular networks
>                  http://www.weedev.org/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>