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

Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> Hello Alex,
> 
> I think we're approaching the point of having to agree to disagree.
 >
>> Errr... somehow yes, if I'm permitted.  I simply suggest a
>> link-layer solution to a link-layer problem.
> 
> IP is a solution that puts together different links.

Yes, provided IP knows what are those links, each one in particular detail.

> If you would like to suggest limiting the applicability of IP to 
> _only_ be allowed to work for links with specific characteristics, 
> then I think you should be explicit about it.

YEs, I'm explicit: it's wifi.

> Perhaps you would get some support, but I'm guessing it would not
> arise from the community of engineers and developers within autoconf
> or manet.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> What if I want to join a working ad hoc network of devices using
>>>  solutions that have already been developed without bridging?
>>> Why is this bad?
>> 
>> It's not bad.
> 
> Whew!
> 
>> 
>> One would first deploy bridges in networks that are partitioned and
>> in need of bridges.  Then any new terminal needing to join could do
>> so, without needing to be itself a bridge.
>> 
>> The question is why does one refuse the use of bridges when the
>> network is partitioned at link-layer?
> 
> That's not a question I have raised, nor do I think that the answer
> would be illuminating.  But my answer is that no one is making any
> such refusal.
> 
> The question is, why can't we use IP as a good tool to solve problems
> of connecting together wireless links into a network, even when
> bridging solutions are not available?

WE need to be able to know over what is IP supposed to run.  If we don't 
have a good under-IP then it can't run.  Actually we could think as much 
it will run as we think it won't run.  Sorry, I can't be clearer than that.

Alex

>>> What if there is a hurricane and some of the relief workers
>>> forgot to put their wireless bridging devices in their backpacks?
>>> 
>> 
>> No no... they won't, because they're trained to never forget these 
>> things at home.  And if they do, then there exist other
>> super-reliefs aids sending them trucks full of these devices.
> 
> Well, here is where we have stark disagreement.  I am surprised if 
> you truly suggest that IP should not be engineered to work because it
> is an "error condition" to not have truckloads of equipment.
> 
> 
> Regards, Charlie P.
> 
> 
> 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf