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

Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> Tue, 24 February 2009 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@marvell.com>
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 1CFC13A6A34 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:03:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 EnCXqpm0t-FX for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:03:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maili.marvell.com (host2.marvell.com [65.219.4.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0283A67A2 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:03:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MSI-MTA.marvell.com (msi-mta.marvell.com [10.68.76.91]) by maili.marvell.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0675E6211B; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:04:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sc-owa01.marvell.com ([10.93.76.21]) by MSI-MTA.marvell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:04:06 -0800
Received: from SC-vEXCH2.marvell.com ([10.93.76.134]) by sc-owa01.marvell.com ([10.93.76.21]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:04:06 -0800
From: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
To: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>, "autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:03:57 -0800
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
Thread-Index: AcmVts2/+HRlOZlOR3SVmQpIK39EBgA1983g
Message-ID: <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D01489D23A@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com>
References: <be8c8d780902230203k5f0ffb38m97d817aff9d95554@mail.gmail.com> <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D01489D135@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com> <be8c8d780902230501n2fb2f0b7jb9e4b9278144c9f9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <be8c8d780902230501n2fb2f0b7jb9e4b9278144c9f9@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2009 15:04:06.0840 (UTC) FILETIME=[2398A380:01C99691]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on 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/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:03:49 -0000

Hi Emmanuel,


>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?

Well ... if this is not part of the problem statement - I could use a pointer or more discussion on what this group wishes to address in the new reduced scope charter.

The document you submitted was though provoking for me on it's notion asymmetric links.  AS I mentioned before - this is not a consideration in any of the IEEE 802 wireless or cellular protocols where I have experience.  I can see that there could be some interesting applications.  My primary comment was that there are existing ad hoc IP address assignment problems that do not have this attribute.

I am starting to see that I may I may be "talking past' members on this list ... and perhaps should just go away ...  I notice that in your draft it says:
   All are configured to
   provide store-and-forward functionality on top of these protocols, as
   needed to enable communications; consequently, they can be classified
   as routers in the resulting wireless network.

None of the consumer devices that I'm concerned with (cellphones, cameras, printers, etc.) will be routers.  They are connected to a ad hoc network and still all need IP addresses.  I'm a big fan of routers :-) ... but not all devices on an ad hoc network forward packets.  If this group is solely interested in routing protocols ... I should go away and create another non-IETF proprietary protocol to solve my problem area.

In this context - is there a specific advocate (customers, products, markets) for the proposals on this list or is it strictly research centric?

If there is need for such a target problem set I would like to suggest the specific problem area of 802.11 ad hoc networks with 802.11i (aka WPA2) security. If some one is interested in this problem ... let me know ... otherwise if this is out of scope I will move to some other mailing list.

Regards,

Paul





________________________________________
From: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Emmanuel Baccelli
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:01 AM
To: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication

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?


Cheers,

Emmanuel




On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> 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: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Emmanuel Baccelli
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:04 AM
To: autoconf@ietf.org
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:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-01.txt


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