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

Emmanuel Baccelli <> Mon, 23 February 2009 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12EFA3A693B for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:00:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.852
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6UAQwBLicJtL for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:00:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014AF3A67F5 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:00:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so4702276bwz.13 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:01:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=M/4kiGxE0BzymRrGgHoso0+6HEGWQ1oHfeMjcE1dGWc=; b=kQA4fdGf3RdU2VGK/FOC4Yx93JIScbTGeFroH9fFyHC/a9UDWBIRC7WfmWjUsql3RN 7MqDEv12Wq7Wp3LsS3aeYJhqHzSTFASP4CJQUtyDshfHBZFhrHayO2z2NIDZguVKqbBn 1t5Qu4XdQgzGzSBOoBbakzbLfHP5QlH8d3LwA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=jST9vVLGK2mBcERF/yrts4cm3xu+2TeZPxmb23rKv6QtOkZeyuxuObbmebqi4PsXHy A/wqyVEsqpg0jmOVTxvbtQKeNJ4Rp17WanRa7nQtqr/Nu4o2zpEwZkP6BhKioqt77Ai7 Q/sr/Fvsrhsu0AJFH1AxC14jxQ+rkplBmy/iY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id d10mr3261426mur.84.1235394066563; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:01:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:01:06 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3168b10690deff9b
Message-ID: <>
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <>
To: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6dd96a07ec23804639598a6
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
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, 23 Feb 2009 13:00:52 -0000

Hi Paul,
thanks for your feedback. This document aims at describing "some important
aspects, experienced over the past decade, of multi-hop ad hoc wireless
communication between routers", as stated in the abstract.

The goal is to reach a common uderstanding of the basic aspects presented in
the draft (asymmetry, time-variation, non-transitivity, and radio-range
aspects of communcation), which we can then refer to when discussing further
issues, such as the ones you mention, for instance.

The goal is NOT to write another problem statement, nor to be exhaustive
regarding issues that AUTOCONF should address.

Do you have any comments about the description of the basic aspects
presented in the draft?



On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Paul Lambert <> wrote:

> Hi,
> The draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-01 provides an
> interesting list of issues that might be addressed by this working group.
> From a quick review it does not appear to address:
>  - ad hoc network coalescing.  Coalescing has clear implications for
>   IP address assignment
>  - there is no mention of multicast versus unicast issues.  Perhaps
>   since the document makes all links potentially asymmetric and
>   unreliable there is no distinction.  At least for 802.11 ad hoc
>   I find significant implications.
>  - it does not address link security establishment
>   The process of setting up the link security is out of scope, but as
>   I've mentioned in earlier emails this has a clear impact on available
>   networking mechanisms.
>   It is also a very important architectural consideration to ensure that
>   IP address assignment has some level of security.
> Asymmetric links in all "ad hoc" networks.  Is it possible to partition our
> problem statements so that this is just one of several optional attributes
> that must be addressed?
> Most modern wireless MAC layers have reliable unicast.  I can see some
> broadcast only links - like satellite broadcast, but outside military
> applications I am not familiar with broadly deployed commercial wireless
> networking technologies that are based on asymmetric unicast transmissions.
> Perhaps someone on this list could point me to the technologies that they
> are considering for this requirement.
> Regards,
> Paul
> ________________________________________
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of Emmanuel Baccelli
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:04 AM
> To:
> Subject: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless
> communication
> Hi all,
> following the fruitful discussions about initial version of the document,
> here is an update to the draft describing aspects of multi-hop wireless
> communication:
> Again, the goal of this document is to identify a consensus about this
> topic, and then use this to move on quicker with the rest of the work...
> Please review it, and provide feedback as soon as possible.
> Cheers
> Emmanuel