Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Sat, 28 February 2009 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 17D3C3A696C for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:38:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.700, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 JC4iPioH2CHG for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:38:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62B43A6805 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.209] (213.37.82.74.static.user.ono.com [213.37.82.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2BBB4D4A1; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:38:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A94589.9050203@gmail.com>
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> <1235828619.6096.24.camel@localhost> <49A94589.9050203@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-7/hG8RdAMkmRCpBMsrD9"
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:38:37 +0100
Message-Id: <1235839117.6096.30.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-5.6.0.1016-16492.000
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
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: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:38:17 -0000

Hi Alex,

	I mean, let's try to agree on the basics (addressing model) and then
let's try to understand what happens with multihoming and more complex
scenarios.

	Thanks,

	Carlos

El sáb, 28-02-2009 a las 15:09 +0100, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
> 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?
> 
> Alex
> 
-- 
 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/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++