IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Mon, 22 December 2008 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <autoconf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: autoconf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-autoconf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7643A6A53; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:30:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4B83A6A53 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:30:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.376, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6pOrAuLH4B3Z for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml16.kpnxchange.com (hpsmtp-eml16.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F083A3A6A28 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:30:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml102.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.84.102]) by hpsmtp-eml16.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:30:35 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml102.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:30:34 +0100
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: 'Alexandru Petrescu' <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <be8c8d780812190119r200efceawef79c63766ea1a3f@mail.gmail.com> <494B8E7C.7000505@gmail.com> <be8c8d780812190504x98496egc37c25b21a799ceb@mail.gmail.com> <494BB75E.4050206@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D016C3E14@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <be8c8d780812190721r7ea9c43aif8aff7c83f44f43@mail.gmail.com> <494BC360.1000109@gmail.com> <be8c8d780812190810y4d891c44tfbec9cce43c3cee9@mail.gmail.com> <494BC927.1020400@gmail.com> <494BCCCC.6050206@earthlink.net> <494BCFEF.2010100@gmail.com> <494BD45A.2090106@earthlink.net> <494BE0D8.4070509@gmail.com> <00ae01c96208$aa2ebd20$fe8c3760$@nl> <494BEAB1.3040700@gmail.com> <00af01c96211$e2c97770$a85c6650$@nl> <494BFE4B.9000601@gmail.com> <000001c96285$b050af60$10f20e20$@nl> <494F6F54.5090901@gmail.com> <004001c96429$9f210d70$dd632850$@nl> <494F9194.9020309@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <494F9194.9020309@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:30:32 +0100
Message-ID: <004901c96441$d8a2f5a0$89e8e0e0$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AclkNpUkm0U7Bni1Rsq/s244nQoqtAABcteg
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2008 14:30:34.0472 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9B1A680:01C96441]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org

|> Yes, I am interested. I'll compare your results with the nonstandard
|> implementation from Ronald (http://madwifi-project.org/ticket/1131).
|> It would be discouraging for him if his work is needless.
|
|Hi Teco, and thanks to Ronald for the madwifi patch.
|
|I wanted to say I didn't consider the madwifi driver, I think
|bridging+adhoc would work without madwifi but with offtheshelf drivers.
|  It is something I should confirm later.
|
|About the madwifi bridging adhoc patch: this means that with that patch
|the bridging could be done with a PC having two wifi interfaces in adhoc
|mode, right?  If that patch goes mainstream then it's all good, right?

No, there are more problems.
Reported problems (bugs...) are split networks due to failing BSSID (clock
synchronization problems), and problems with beacon suppression. Personally
I think the probe reply storm with high collision probability is a more
difficult one to solve.

More important, there is a need for multi-hop forwarding. 802.1D does not
support that. Some came up with some kind of STP implementation, but this is
IMHO not well behaving in a mobile environment. Better approaches use some
kind of MANET protocols, often copies from the IETF ones.

Anyhow, there are other reasons using IP MANET protocols. Using multiple
types of media is often mentioned and in fact you also came up with this
one. Scalability and finding the best paths in a dynamic topology is our
challenge.


|I understand you also seem to say this patch would break an IEEE
|specification (802.1D?), right?  If so then maybe that spec would be
|fixed according to implementation?

It is partly solved. 802.1D does not provide multi-hop communication in an
ad hoc network.
The patch provides support for an Ethernet connection between a MANET router
and a WLAN radio in a mode similar to .11 IBSS.

802.11s would provide something that is similar to a MANET. Again, it is .11
only. Not sure on performance / scalability. Not even mentioning split /
merges with multi-homing.
 

Teco.




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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email