Subject: Re: [Autoconf] draft-clausen-manet-linktype - naming

From: Emmanuel Baccelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:14:49 +0100

The thing that may be confusing people is that sometimes the link looks
like an ethernet, and the next minute it looks different (for example
you suddenly have no transitivity etc.).

So maybe the most important thing is in fact this dynamism in property,
which may be easier to explain. And thus the link model would fall out
as the "least common denominator" of all these possible properties.

Emmanuel

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> If there is the non-transitivity regardless of the link model or
> assumption, how does it help to discuss or define any link model
> for MANETs?

First you recognise that you have non-transitivity.
Then you decide what your link model should be that handles that.

This is as opposed to when you have transitivity (and symmetry).
Then you have a wider range of possible link models.
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf