Re: [Autoconf] Re: movement scenario

[Yangwoo Ko <[e-mail]>]

I got lost. Can somebody clarify how mobility affects address 
configurations? It is very obvious that mobility affects decisions on 
which solutions are better than others. But it seems only related with 
how dynamic the characteristics of MANET-type links are rather than with 
what kinds of prefixes/addresses are to be given.

Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Kenichi. Maybe one could mention different scenarios in
> the PS, but basically no particular mobility model should be
> considered in my opinion. For Alex's concern about comparability, I
> don't think this should be part of a PS (maybe more in a solution
> space? or something like
> draft-bernardos-autoconf-evaluation-considerations ?). The problem of
> autoconfiguration should be applicable to all mobility patterns to my
> understanding.
>
> Ulrich
>
> On 12/4/07, mase <[e-mail]> wrote:
>   
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> At 14:11 07/12/04, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>     
>>> mase wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Hi,
>>>> At 10:20 07/12/04, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> mase wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> I want to share my thoughts on link-local addresses and MLA
>>>>>>> with you. I think link-locals are essential to IPv6. I do not
>>>>>>> understand why we have a discussion on this. It is to be used
>>>>>>> for single hop communication, which is also very applicable in
>>>>>>> MANET.
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Yes, but your former neighbor may be now out-of-transmission
>>>>>> range and only communicated over multi-hop. Do you prefer to
>>>>>> change your source/destination address from a link-local address
>>>>>> to MLA?
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Ha!  That's right...
>>>>> Src/dst address rewriting makes immediately think of NAT :-)
>>>>> I think the case you describe above (former neighbor moves from a
>>>>> link to another) deserves deep analysis.  What are the mobility
>>>>> scenarios considered?  How do entities move, from where to where?
>>>>>           
>>>> Any mobility. We do not assume a particular mobility scenario when
>>>> designing MANET routing protocols.
>>>>         
>>> I think that is a problem.  If we don't know the landmarks, the movement
>>> patterns, the dependencies... then it's very difficult to design
>>> something meaningful, that fits some initial goals and requirements.
>>>
>>> I think people who have prototyped MANETs have always tested certain
>>> movement scenarios.  At least these could be documented.
>>>
>>> It's really very tough to design something that acomodates _any_ mobility...
>>>
>>> Besides, such thing risks of not being able to be qualified, can not be
>>> evaluated, can not be compared.  Of course, it _can_ be designed _and_
>>> prototyped but how would one compare it.
>>>       
>> I understand your concern. "Any mobility" may not be adequate.
>> pedestrian ad hoc networks, vehicular ad hoc networks, ...
>> Different ad hoc networks may have different mobility models
>> (maximum speed, etc.). I only wanted to point out we do not assume
>> a particular mobility model in developing  autoconfiguration
>> solutions.  In general, we do not assume apriori knowledge on
>> locations and movement of MANET routers.
>>
>> Kenichi
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>       
>>>>> After a node moves from one subnet to another: does it keep its
>>>>> address?  Does it keep both its address _and_ its prefix?  When it
>>>>>  keeps its address - nobody else on the previous link can use that
>>>>>  address on that previous link?
>>>>>           
>>>> Yes, in the same MANET. We thus need to define MANET-local address.
>>>> Kenichi
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Despite the apparent complexity of describing this, I think it's
>>>>> not so difficult - as long as two or more people have encountered
>>>>> the same movement scenario.
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>  This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
>>>>> System. For more information please visit
>>>>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>           
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>>> For more information please visit
>>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>       
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Autoconf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
>   



_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf