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

"Emmanuel Baccelli" <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Fri, 19 December 2008 13:11 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 50ADD3A6830; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:11:26 -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 6FAF53A6830 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:11:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, 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 GBbXIZT3eobi for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:11:24 -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 BB3673A67D1 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:11:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so3584933bwz.13 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:11:14 -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=3E8U6mGnpa6wVgRPaWrgUAAfhoG0KFeHD1dz3/VrF9s=; b=eLIP+QA1QAmCL2qmleKHV3L9oDuP+QK3B6bGxV8V8KLubDnR151aLp5WrxG4Vnbmkl BMUG8+I0QpEnByLWWNaGFdfcf3+cWiGVSrNTdf1gXMeC7IYXug+AZcYFlhpvG4sSCW0U qHj1Pj1Apt+Ww3x8eT+CDIgrMOVddMBq4xlAU=
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=Kh/xsDVPNkLIYnHuLtS91AQ8uKpAlmVudwJ2dhVBTvBRrLS5fXjjZ3wsKc16EF45D6 5qSAAoD5H8+sZU8dpFRfCsDltj8p5dR/ipyFSU0byRaLDu77Dpl1/EcgrznVRGL50D2l b1kLnhj53tblt0B+dAAoKtxrYBfX0yMorKZyk=
Received: by 10.103.92.10 with SMTP id u10mr1230951mul.22.1229692274650; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.248.12 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <be8c8d780812190511t31bb9a3co32c53ba4b1be9e5a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:11:14 +0100
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
To: autoconf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <005101c961d2$8c7f4ff0$a57defd0$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <be8c8d780812190119r200efceawef79c63766ea1a3f@mail.gmail.com> <005101c961d2$8c7f4ff0$a57defd0$@nl>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0e9060f3671b8887
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="===============1684448975=="
Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Teco, thanks for your feedback,

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> wrote:

> Hi Emmanual and Charles,
>
> Thanks for the efforts.
> I like the compactness of the draft.
>
>
> Maybe mention alternate terminology "uni-directional" for "asymmetric" ?
> As discussed before, asymmetry is also used for different link qualities
> for A to B and B to A, where A and B have a symmetric relation.
>

I agree. I think it would be nice to have unidirectional mentionned in the
alternative terminology. Should have this in -01.


>
>
> > - We may say that router B is a neighbor of router A. In this
> >   terminology, there is no guarantee that router A is a neighbor of
> >   router B.
>
> In this case, the neighbor table of router B would list router A.
> So I say router A is neighbor of router B, and there is no guarantee
> that router B is a neighbor of router A.
> Or I say the relation between neighbors is symmetric, but some neighbors
> may not be aware of this.
>


OK, I think I see what you mean: you are saying that since B hears A, the
text should rather be:
"A is neighbor of router B, and there is no guarantee that router B is a
neighbor of router A"
Am I correct?

 Emmanuel



>
> Regards, Teco
>
>
> ===
> Van: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] Namens
> Emmanuel Baccelli
> Verzonden: vrijdag 19 december 2008 10:19
> Aan: autoconf@ietf.org
> Onderwerp: [Autoconf] aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
>
> Hi all,
>
> here's a draft that aims at describing important aspects of multi-hop
> wireless communication, as observed over the past decade of experience with
> such networks.
>
> The goal of this document is to identify a consensus about this topic, and
> then use this to move on quicker with the working group documents.
>
> Please review it, and provide feedback as soon as possible.
>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-0
> 0
>
> cheers
> Emmanuel
>
>
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf