Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication

Paul Lambert <> Mon, 23 February 2009 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88B728C172 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:54:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pcxlawWy+nR3 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CDE28C185 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F285F22E; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:54:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:54:50 -0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:54:50 -0800
From: Paul Lambert <>
To: Emmanuel Baccelli <>, "" <>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:54:43 -0800
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
Thread-Index: AcmVng0at4IYN8F8RbqUjfdVphcO8QAAJQyw
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2009 10:54:50.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[26AD16B0:01C995A5]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:54:33 -0000


The draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-01 provides an interesting list of issues that might be addressed by this working group.

>From a quick review it does not appear to address:
 - ad hoc network coalescing.  Coalescing has clear implications for
   IP address assignment
 - there is no mention of multicast versus unicast issues.  Perhaps
   since the document makes all links potentially asymmetric and
   unreliable there is no distinction.  At least for 802.11 ad hoc
   I find significant implications.
 - it does not address link security establishment
   The process of setting up the link security is out of scope, but as
   I've mentioned in earlier emails this has a clear impact on available
   networking mechanisms.
   It is also a very important architectural consideration to ensure that
   IP address assignment has some level of security.

Asymmetric links in all "ad hoc" networks.  Is it possible to partition our problem statements so that this is just one of several optional attributes that must be addressed?

Most modern wireless MAC layers have reliable unicast.  I can see some broadcast only links - like satellite broadcast, but outside military applications I am not familiar with broadly deployed commercial wireless networking technologies that are based on asymmetric unicast transmissions. Perhaps someone on this list could point me to the technologies that they are considering for this requirement.



From: [] On Behalf Of Emmanuel Baccelli
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:04 AM
Subject: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication

Hi all,

following the fruitful discussions about initial version of the document, here is an update to the draft describing aspects of multi-hop wireless communication:

Again, the goal of this document is to identify a consensus about this topic, and then use this to move on quicker with the rest of the work...

Please review it, and provide feedback as soon as possible.