RE: [manet] AODV Question

Jitesh Shah <jiteshshahin@yahoo.com> Fri, 14 November 2003 04:27 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10936 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:27:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKVYD-0005yy-8a for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:27:19 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAE4RHU7022992 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:27:17 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKVYD-0005yl-5F for manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:27:17 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10922 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:27:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKVYB-0005CI-00 for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:27:15 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKVYA-0005CF-00 for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:27:14 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKVXy-0005ui-Ag; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:27:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKVX7-0005q7-3E for manet@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:26:09 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10894 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:25:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKVX4-0005Ay-00 for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:26:06 -0500
Received: from web8202.mail.in.yahoo.com ([203.199.70.115]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKVX3-0005Ah-00 for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:26:06 -0500
Message-ID: <20031114042531.46825.qmail@web8202.mail.in.yahoo.com>
Received: from [203.201.200.249] by web8202.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:25:31 GMT
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:25:31 +0000
From: Jitesh Shah <jiteshshahin@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: [manet] AODV Question
To: DANIEL BYRNE <daniel.byrne@adtran.com>, manet@ulfius.com, manet@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <39B01E2189D99F4B8C9612462DB3922A0CEBA928@srv-exchange.adtran.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Daniel,

I completely agree with you when you suggest that one
must take care of the future needs when we are in the
development stage. 

We might have to face a situation in the real life
when we might actually need more than a byte. The
things being in development stage, I believe perhaps
this is the right time to incorporate the changes
rather than evolving with AODV 1.1 at a later stage
:-)

Rgds
Jitesh



 --- DANIEL BYRNE <daniel.byrne@adtran.com> wrote: >
Agreed.  A branched chain configuration would be
> difficult to support with only a BYTE. My point is
> that although most everyone involved in development
> and testing of this protocol have envisioned a
> 'cluster of connected nodes' arrangement, the
> reality is the sum total of all possible topolgies
> in a wireless network of this type is potentially
> limitless.  Limited in effect by only the range of
> the radios in the network.  How are we to know how
> some future person or organization will use this
> protocol?  Will they need the extra BYTE?  Should we
> place artificial limits on the protocol by
> purposefully limiting the hop count, address range,
> etc.?
> 
> One solution is the "extensions" field in the latest
> draft of AODV could potentially provide a means to
> expand upon the protocol in the future if
> neccessary.  
>
http://moment.cs.ucsb.edu/pub/draft-perkins-manet-aodvbis-00.txt
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jitesh Shah [mailto:jiteshshahin@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:36 AM
> To: manet@ulfius.com; manet@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [manet] AODV Question
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It depends on how you see the network. If you are
> refering to a network which has a CHAIN topology
> then
> the byte used for RREP and RREQ might be way
> insignificant. But when you refer to a well
> connected
> network then the byte seems sufficient.
> 
> Rgds
> Jitesh
> 
>  --- Robert Cain <manet@ulfius.com> wrote: >
> Connectivity is the number of other nodes each node
> > can reach with 1 hop.
> > Therefore a connectivity of 10 means there is 10
> > nodes that a can reach
> > directly. Obviously in an actual network this
> would
> > vary from node to node.
> > 
> > 
> > Rob Cain :-)
> > 
> > 
> > >What does the connectivity parameter specify?  Is
> > it saying in 100,000
> > nodes only 10 nodes would be connected?
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Robert Cain [mailto:tgm@ulfius.com]
> > >Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:13 AM
> > >To: DANIEL BYRNE
> > >Subject: Re: [manet] AODV Question
> > >
> > >
> > >1 byte seems OK to me.
> > >
> > >With some simple analysis assuming a circular
> > homogeneous network of node
> > >count K and a reasonable connectivity C then the
> > radius of the network in
> > >hops can be derived to be the square root of K/C.
> > Which for a network size
> > >of 100,000 and a connectivity of 10 gives a hop
> > count radius of 100.
> > Seeing
> > >as a network of size 100,000 will be probably at
> > practical limits of size
> > >due to performance degradation then I think 1
> byte
> > may well be enough.
> > >
> > >hope that helps :-)
> > >
> > >Rob Cain
> > >
> > >>if the 
> > >>
> > >>"AODV routing protocol is designed for mobile ad
> > hoc networks
> > >>   with populations of tens to thousands of
> mobile
> > nodes"
> > >>
> > >>why is the HopCount limited to only a BYTE? 
> This
> > effectively limits the
> > >number of hops to 255.  Why not expand the hop
> > count to two bytes into the
> > >reseved region of the RREQ packet.  Something
> > similar could be done with
> > >the RREP packet as well.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>manet mailing list
> > >>manet@ietf.org
> > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> > >>
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > manet mailing list
> > manet@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet 
> 
>
________________________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! India Mobile: Download the latest polyphonic
> ringtones.
> Go to http://in.mobile.yahoo.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet 

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Mobile: Download the latest polyphonic ringtones.
Go to http://in.mobile.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet