Re: [Autoconf] Re: movement scenario

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yangwoo Ko,

Yangwoo Ko wrote:
> 
> I got lost. Can somebody clarify how mobility affects address 
> configurations?

Well, it's simple.  If we agree that mobility is when a node changes its
address (remark it's different than that 'mobility' that defines a node
that physically moves).  We may not, probably.

> It is very obvious that mobility affects decisions on which solutions
> are better than others. But it seems only related with how dynamic
> the characteristics of MANET-type links are rather than with what
> kinds of prefixes/addresses are to be given.

I kind of see what you mean.

But it is often important to have a good idea about what addresses and 
their scopes are going to be used because that has immediate 
consequences on the existing protocols.

Or maybe you mean something else I don't see?

Alex

> 
> Ulrich Herberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I agree with Kenichi. Maybe one could mention different scenarios
>> in the PS, but basically no particular mobility model should be 
>> considered in my opinion. For Alex's concern about comparability, I
>>  don't think this should be part of a PS (maybe more in a solution 
>> space? or something like 
>> draft-bernardos-autoconf-evaluation-considerations ?). The problem
>> of autoconfiguration should be applicable to all mobility patterns
>> to my understanding.
>> 
>> Ulrich
>> 
>> On 12/4/07, mase <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Alex,
>>> 
>>> At 14:11 07/12/04, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>> 
>>>> mase wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi, At 10:20 07/12/04, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> mase wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I want to share my thoughts on link-local addresses and
>>>>>>>> MLA with you. I think link-locals are essential to
>>>>>>>> IPv6. I do not understand why we have a discussion on
>>>>>>>> this. It is to be used for single hop communication,
>>>>>>>> which is also very applicable in MANET.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, but your former neighbor may be now
>>>>>>> out-of-transmission range and only communicated over
>>>>>>> multi-hop. Do you prefer to change your
>>>>>>> source/destination address from a link-local address to
>>>>>>> MLA?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ha!  That's right... Src/dst address rewriting makes
>>>>>> immediately think of NAT :-) I think the case you describe
>>>>>> above (former neighbor moves from a link to another)
>>>>>> deserves deep analysis.  What are the mobility scenarios
>>>>>> considered?  How do entities move, from where to where?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Any mobility. We do not assume a particular mobility scenario
>>>>> when designing MANET routing protocols.
>>>>> 
>>>> I think that is a problem.  If we don't know the landmarks, the
>>>>  movement patterns, the dependencies... then it's very
>>>> difficult to design something meaningful, that fits some
>>>> initial goals and requirements.
>>>> 
>>>> I think people who have prototyped MANETs have always tested
>>>> certain movement scenarios.  At least these could be
>>>> documented.
>>>> 
>>>> It's really very tough to design something that acomodates
>>>> _any_ mobility...
>>>> 
>>>> Besides, such thing risks of not being able to be qualified,
>>>> can not be evaluated, can not be compared.  Of course, it _can_
>>>> be designed _and_ prototyped but how would one compare it.
>>>> 
>>> I understand your concern. "Any mobility" may not be adequate. 
>>> pedestrian ad hoc networks, vehicular ad hoc networks, ... 
>>> Different ad hoc networks may have different mobility models 
>>> (maximum speed, etc.). I only wanted to point out we do not
>>> assume a particular mobility model in developing
>>> autoconfiguration solutions.  In general, we do not assume
>>> apriori knowledge on locations and movement of MANET routers.
>>> 
>>> Kenichi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Alex
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> After a node moves from one subnet to another: does it keep
>>>>>> its address?  Does it keep both its address _and_ its
>>>>>> prefix?  When it keeps its address - nobody else on the
>>>>>> previous link can use that address on that previous link?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, in the same MANET. We thus need to define MANET-local
>>>>> address. Kenichi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Despite the apparent complexity of describing this, I think
>>>>>> it's not so difficult - as long as two or more people have
>>>>>> encountered the same movement scenario. Alex
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email
>>>>>> Security System. For more information please visit 
>>>>>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>  This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
>>>> System. For more information please visit 
>>>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
>>> list [e-mail] 
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
>> list [e-mail] 
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list
>  [e-mail] https://www1.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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf