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

Hello again Alex,

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> Do you think that routing protocol work should only be chartered for 
>> links that conform to certain regularity assumptions like symmetry 
>> and transitivity?
>
> Is this a MANET WG question?

It is a question that you could use to explain your view of how
to engineer solutions for wireless networks.

>
> I think in AUTOCONF WG we don't do work that applies _only_ to DYMO, nor
> to OLSR, nor to DSR.

Actually, I'd say the same thing about [manet] wg.  And, the authors of
TBRPF and many others would bristle that you didn't mention them.

>
> If the AUTOCONF mechanism is to be only for DYMO/OLSR/DSR exclusively
> then I just say ok for the draft titled 'aspects of multi-hop...'.

The existing [autoconf] solutions (not yet working group documents)
that motivated the creation of the group _did_ have to face the same
issues as we have been discussing in the context of engineering routing
protocols.

>
>> You seem to claim that we shouldn't worry about them because the link
>>  layer has to solve problems like asymmetry and hidden terminal 
>> problems.  I'm of the opinion that routing protocols have to be 
>> engineered in some circumstances to avoid making unwarranted 
>> inferences about symmetry and transitivity.
>
> Maybe yes, but maybe in MANET WG?

I'm also of the opinion that there is going to be some
overlap between the mechanisms for address assignment,
and the routing protocols.  For instance, it is very reasonable
to use a multi-hop gateway beacon to advertise information
relevant to address assignment.  I do not say that it is
absolutely required to be this way, but on the other hand
solutions that take care to avoid the pitfalls under discussion
are, in my opinion, more likely to succeed than other more
brute force solutions.

>
>> I think it would be nice to identify exactly what your concern is. 
>> Once it was WiFi only, now it's not.
>
> Sorry, to make myself clear: in this discussion wifi and 802.16 were
> mentioned.  I agree both should be dealt with.  I don't agree to deal
> with a link-layer whose name I don't know.
>
> Alex
>

But, on the other hand, if a solution that works for 802.{11*,16,...} is
created in a way that is cognizant of the wireless characteristics as we
have described in our Internet Draft, then it is _more likely_ to work for
the other unspecified but presumably similar media.

Which is why we wrote it.

Do you disagree with this motivation?

Regards,
Charlie P.

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