Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Teco Boot" <> Mon, 02 March 2009 12:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAEC23A6C38 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 04:01:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.246
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.246 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id frtOUunEUuV7 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 04:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA363A6BFB for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 04:01:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 32419 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2009 13:01:55 +0100
Received: from (HELO M90Teco) ( by with SMTP; 2 Mar 2009 13:01:55 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <>
To: "'HyungJin Lim'" <>
References: <> <> <> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <002f01c998bf$8f112210$ad336630$@nl> <1235828619.6096.24.camel@localhost> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:01:25 +0100
Message-ID: <003701c99b2e$af2d43f0$0d87cbd0$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmaGqoTHJvJbYbRTTW0cmvuJK/2kwBEjmTw
Content-Language: nl
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
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, 02 Mar 2009 12:01:32 -0000


I think nested-NEMO is handled by MEXT. As soon as the NEMO-RO requirement
documents are finalized we could check how MANET protocols fit and if there
is a need for an optimized MANET protocol for NEMO (e.g. MANEMO).

For the nested-NEMO addressing model, I am not aware of problems. 
Problems are introduced when the Mobile Network is a MANET, where nodes come
and go and prefix information is sent to (multiple) home agents dynamically.
The MANET Routing protocol may run over the MRHA tunnel, but this could
introduce high overhead, especially if metrics are introduced and metrics
dampening & hysteresis is not implemented. 
There could be some issues with MANET + NEMO + multi-homing.

Regards, Teco

Van: HyungJin Lim [] 
Verzonden: zondag 1 maart 2009 4:06
Aan: Alexandru Petrescu
Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

2009/2/28, Alexandru Petrescu <>om>: 
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".

       |                            |           +-------+-------+    
 |Access Router H|       +-------+-------+                |                
             ||Prefix information H          |V                     wifi
       |                   <---------------------------v-------->
 <------|--v---------------------->                     |      
       |  |                    |                       |
   +---+--'+               +---'---+               +---'---+
   +---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? 
   I think we can divided into two category in MANET scenario as follows.
        Category 1 
            Scenario 1: "MANET to Internet", in case, depths of nested
routers(NEMO)  is under three levels.
                           This is practical case in real world (i.e.,
most scenarios in real world)
         Scenario 2: "MANET to Internet", depths of nested routers is more
than three levels.
                             (i.e., perhaps disaster situation, etc.. )
       Category 2 (scenario 3) 
                           : "Only MANET", in case, the network does not has
a connectivity to Internet.
                             (i.e., peer-to-peer network, etc..)
     Requirement of address model we need is different according with
considered scenario I think.
     Then some scenarios included in category 2 not needs topological
meaningful address. 
      Which area is AUTOCONF want to pinpoint ? 
      I think AUTOCONF should satisfy requirements between pure MANET, NEMO
      that can compose of mesh network, although we discussed about the
difference between MANET, NEMO and MANEMO
      Moreover, these networks can has some impacts due to mobility pattern,
wireless coverage and any other situations. AUTOCONF
Addressing model can make a important role to efficient and secure aspects.
     What do you think about my comments ?
   Hyung-Jin, Lim

Autoconf mailing list