IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Emmanuel Baccelli" <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Fri, 19 December 2008 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <autoconf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: autoconf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA763A6830; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:06:58 -0800 (PST)
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 5E1913A6830 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:06:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 0BGyF6mqIu+v for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f21.google.com (mail-bw0-f21.google.com [209.85.218.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B423A67D1 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:06:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so3577939bwz.13 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:06:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=AmWRXuDvCutwVgCXgobXw9GCBLRGSTytc9RlJclijAg=; b=ICf8Piavjc7SyvEF93MycyJs9nPfRoJ9tzF85Y5vDxl88zDg+7MZO/Bo+0XziwdbMb 6gUdmIx+Ff+XKsyRGPHIuX7xWgvWbLJ5SmhKkvnYEc0sXRSUrobo1wz9RzLVL/Zz13mg nhzLUazmIXx3jq7/2pSIxF2qvvU1xLtTEiq+A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Muob5b6wumhCus19TuMnysp4+lcnGm2cAgKHiM3+Jm7XeQhxOqfgXQcjbvbkaCYekd sD9j7Q+1LQIWd+voL/FcFHNnYrltqZQJQIye9ECfcnS02cxVLF99rm3srJ+o82z24+Wy 4CTtdqkmOQfWn2ilcX0GtBKrVK3aYoVZL4b1s=
Received: by 10.103.225.11 with SMTP id c11mr1226086mur.24.1229692006526; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.248.12 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <be8c8d780812190506i242a859bo60aa5dcf387adad4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:06:46 +0100
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
To: autoconf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <005701c961d4$0b1fbc40$215f34c0$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <be8c8d780812190119r200efceawef79c63766ea1a3f@mail.gmail.com> <494B8E7C.7000505@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D016C3D54@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <494B9035.40405@gmail.com> <005701c961d4$0b1fbc40$215f34c0$@nl>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3b39bb52d88cc84b
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1843878740=="
Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org

Yeah, me too! We'd keep it a secret and we'd get rich ;)Emmanuel

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> wrote:

> |>>> First, there is no guarantee that a router C within S can,
> |>>> symmetrically, send IP packets directly to router A. In other words,
> |>>> even though C can "hear" packets from node A (since it is a member
> |of
> |>>> set S), there is no guarantee that A can "hear" packets from node C.
> |>
> |>> Sorry, could one mention why?  What's the example of this?
> |>
> |> The simplest example (but by no means the only) is different power
> |> levels transmitted by A and C.
> |
> |And isn't it the same for wired communications ?  (and would a potential
> |solution to this to have the same power levels transmitted by A and C?)
>
> One other reason is noise levels.
>
> Alex, if you can provide a noise suppression device, please send me one.
>
> Teco.
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email