Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Teco, I'm happy you updated the obstacles scenario.  That's important 
insight on what movement may actually be.

I'd go further include default routes in the tables, and specific 
addresses like 10.1.1.1/32 instead of A, and subnet prefixes 10.1.1.0/24 
for example.

Sorry just asking about this: the Cost in the routing tables.  The 
kernel routing tables don't have variable Cost, they're all metric 1 I 
believe (all next-hops are 1-hop away).  The routing protocols' tables 
may have Cost and other variables.

Did you assume a routing protocol?

My preference is to not assume any routing protocol.

Alex

Teco Boot a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
> 
> I included wrong routing table info in the "obstacles" scenarios.
> Here a full set of diagrams with routing table info.
> 
> I removed "STA-", now the model applies to non-802.11 topologies as well.
> 
> Teco.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  MANET topology with moving and blocking obstacle
> 
>           +------------------------+   +------------------------+
>           |                        |   |                        |
>           |           ______B      |   |           ______B      |
>           |       ___/      |      |   |       ___/             |
>           |      A          |      |   |      A       OBSTACLE  |
>           |      '--_       |      |   |      '--_              |
>           |          '------C      |   |          '------C      |
>           |  OBSTACLE              |   |                        |
>           +------------------------+   +------------------------+
>               1-1: Full connected          1-2: B-C via A
> 
>           +------------------------+   +------------------------+
>           |                        |   |          O             |
>           |           ______B      |   |          B      B      |
>           |       ___/      |      |   |          S      |      |
>           |      A      OB  |      |   |      A   T      |      |
>           |            ST   |      |   |          A      |      |
>           |           AC    C      |   |          C      C      |
>           |         LE             |   |          L             |
>           |                        |   |          E             |
>           +------------------------+   +------------------------+
>                1-3: A-C via B          1-4: A-B and A-C blocked
> 
> 
>    The routing tables for the MANET Routers look as follows:
> 
>         ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP COST    ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP COST
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |
>        |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |
>        |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   A   |  2 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   C   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   C   |   A   |   A   |  1 |
>        |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |       |   B   |   B   |  2 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>              1-1: All single hop             1-2: B-C degraded
> 
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |   A   |       |       |    |
>        |       |   C   |   B   |  2 |  |       |       |       |    |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   B   |       |       |    |
>        |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   C   |   A   |   B   |  2 |  |   C   |       |       |    |
>        |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>               1-3: A-C degraded           1-4: A-B and A-C blocked
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  MANET topology with moving and degrading obstacle
> 
>     In these scenarios, link metrics are introduced.
> 
>           +------------------------+   +------------------------+
>           |                        |   |                        |
>           |          _______B      |   |           ______B      |
>           |       __/ 1     |      |   |       __/ 1     .      |
>           |      A          | 1    |   |      A        obstacle |
>           |      '--_ 1     |      |   |      '--_ 1     . 5    |
>           |          '------C      |   |          '------C      |
>           |  obstacle              |   |                        |
>           +------------------------+   +------------------------+
>                2-1: No hindrance            2-2: B-C degraded
> 
>           +------------------------+   +------------------------+
>           |                        |   |          o             |
>           |           ______B      |   |       5  b .....B      |
>           |       ___/ 1    |      |   |       ...s.     |      |
>           |      A      ob  | 1    |   |      A   t      | 1    |
>           |       ...  st   |      |   |       ...a.     |      |
>           |       5  .ac.... C     |   |       5  c .....C      |
>           |         le             |   |          l             |
>           |                        |   |          e             |
>           +------------------------+   +------------------------+
>              2-3: A-C degraded          2-4: A-B and A-C degraded
> 
> 
>    The routing tables:
> 
>         ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP COST    ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP COST
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |
>        |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |
>        |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   A   |  2 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   C   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   C   |   A   |   A   |  1 |
>        |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |       |   B   |   A   |  2 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>               2-1: No hindrance               2-2: B-C degraded
> 
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   A   |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |   A   |   B   |   B   |  5 |
>        |       |   C   |   B   |  2 |  |       |   C   |   C   |  5 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   B   |   A   |   A   |  1 |  |   B   |   A   |   A   |  5 |
>        |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |  |       |   C   |   C   |  1 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>        |   C   |   A   |   B   |  2 |  |   C   |   A   |   A   |  5 |
>        |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |  |       |   B   |   B   |  1 |
>        +-------+-------+-------+----+  +-------+-------+-------+----+
>              2-3: A-C degraded          2-4: A-B and A-C degraded
> 
>    In this scenario, the most optimal paths are used, a 2-hop path with 
>    metric 2 is used instead of a single hop path with metric 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  MANET topology with degrading obstacle and noise
> 
>     In this scenario, C can hear A through an obstacle as scenario 2-3,
>     but A reception of B and C is affected by high level "NOISE" (3.1) 
>     or low level "noise" (3-2). With high level noise, A cannot hear C and 
>     the link is "uni-directional".
> 
>     Term "asymmetric" is used to indicate unbalanced metrics for the
> direction
>     of traffic between two nodes. In other documents, "asymmetric" is used
> for
>     what is called "uni-directional" here.
> 
> 
>           +------------------------+   +------------------------+
>           |                        |   |                        |
>           |           ____1_B      |   |           ____1_B      |
>           |       3__/      |      |   |       2__/      |      |
>           |      A       ob | 1    |   |      A      ob  | 1    |
>           | NOISE      st   |      |   | noise ...  st   |      |
>           |         x.ac.>..C      |   |      10  .ac....C      |
>           |         le             |   |         le     5       |
>           +------------------------+   +------------------------+
>            3-1: A-C uni-directional     3-2: A-C & B-C asymmetric
>                 A-B asymmetric  
> 
> 
>       ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP METRIC    ROUTER   DEST   NEXTHOP METRIC
>      +-------+-------+-------+------+  +-------+-------+-------+------+
>      |   A   |   B   |   B   |    3 |  |   A   |   B   |   B   |    2 |
>      |       |   C   |   B   |    4 |  |       |   C   |   B   |    3 |
>      +-------+-------+-------+------+  +-------+-------+-------+------+
>      |   B   |   A   |   A   |    1 |  |   B   |   A   |   A   |    1 |
>      |       |   C   |   C   |    1 |  |       |   C   |   C   |    1 |
>      +-------+-------+-------+------+  +-------+-------+-------+------+
>      |   C   |   A   |   B   |    2 |  |   C   |   A   |   B   |    2 |
>      |       |   B   |   B   |    1 |  |       |   B   |   B   |    1 |
>      +-------+-------+-------+------+  +-------+-------+-------+------+
>            3-1: A-C uni-directional     3-2: A-C & B-C asymmetric
>                 A-B asymmetric  
> 
>    When the noise level near station A is intermitting between high and low 
>    levels, this does not influence the routing topology, as the MANET
> protocol 
>    has selected path A-B-C between the routers A and C, because better
> metrics
>    and bidirectional validation.
>    The MANET Routing Protocol checks directionality of links before using
> these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>