Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 03 March 2009 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 86DF13A6849 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:39:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.986
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MANGLED_LIST=2.3]
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 K02SM5ghYCMs for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:39:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp6-g21.free.fr (smtp6-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F2F3A67FA for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:39:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp6-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DB1E08125; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 23:40:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bur91-3-82-239-213-32.fbx.proxad.net [82.239.213.32]) by smtp6-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60543E08067; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 23:40:15 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <49ADB1CC.4000704@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:40:12 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <7E8A76F7-2CE0-463A-8EE8-8877C46B4715@gmail.com> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl> <49A7E58C.2020303@gmail.com> <007201c99903$c4182c80$4c488580$@nl> <49A82E55.10208@gmail.com> <007b01c99911$907facf0$b17f06d0$@nl> <49A8471E.6090506@gmail.com> <009501c99920$92154340$b63fc9c0$@nl> <49A944FF.9000102@gmail.com> <003001c99b2c$a3fcf4a0$ebf6dde0$@nl> <49AD5184.6080300@gmail.com> <000b01c99c48$3a34ffa0$ae9efee0$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <000b01c99c48$3a34ffa0$ae9efee0$@nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090303-1, 03/03/2009), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
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: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:39:57 -0000

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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>