Subject: RE: [manet] I have a dream

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:15:45 -0500

Why can't this dream be realized easily, without any MANET?

Your wireless host gets two IP addresses, either NATed or real.

One address belongs to your WLAN, connected to your own ADSL link. The other one to your neighbor's. Your host is configured as a router. You either include a static routing table to drive packets through one or the other WLAN based on whatever criteria you come up with, or you let the router function figure out the best route to use, e.g. with ICMP redirects.

Alternatively, use a single WLAN for yourself and your neighbor, if within range. Then you have a simple case of a default router and an alternate router, and you can add "route add" commands in your wireless host to force packets on one or the other router, depending on where they are going.

Alternatively, tie the two WLANs together into a single link layer, even if using two different frequencies, then proceed as the paragraph above.

If the wireless links are only used to connect to fixed APs, there's no MANET needed in this equation at all.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: S Woodside [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:43 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [manet] I have a dream
> 
> 
> Well, it's a fairly minor dream. What I imagine is this: I 
> have DSL. My 
> neighbour has DSL. We also both have WiFi APs that can reach each 
> other, and connect at order-of-magnitude faster than the DSL links. 
> What I dream is this: That we start routing internet across the link. 
> When I start pulling packets off the internet, they can come 
> to me not 
> only through my own DSL but from hers as well. I think this 
> boils down 
> to an ultimate simplicity what all FN / CWNers want to achieve.
> 
> What needs to happen before I can realize my dream. I need to get an 
> IPv6 address ... at least one ... for free. I need to be able 
> to set up 
> multi-homing in my home router. I need to be able to advertise my 
> routing path to the internet. The internet needs to be able to handle 
> at a massive scale (since every neighbour connects...). We 
> need a /lot/ 
> more IP addresses than we have now. I need to use a /real/ IP address 
> because I can't route internet traffic through a NAT/site-local 
> address. I need to have an ad-hoc routing algorithm that can set up 
> this bridge and route across it really easily (because I'm not a 
> trained network admin). Forget about BGP, AS, etc., we need a way to 
> handle the massive overload of routes at local scale, at a regional 
> scale, at a global scale -- something that will scale 
> gracefully as the 
> internet topology shifts from a tree to a massively connected mesh.
> 
> Please comment ... tell me what you think.
> 
> Simon
> 
> PS I'm cross-posting this to a bunch of lists because I don't 
> know one 
> it belongs on. If you think you know which is best, please tell me!
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Ken Peirce <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:09:35 -0800

You're looking at combining the multiple links into one as far as TCP can
tell. This is what Multilink PPP does. Unfortunately, the problem will be
the dissimilar link speeds. Packet reordering is evil for TCP and the slow
DSL link will not only be the limiting factor but will likely cause the
bundle of links to perform like a weak DSL connection.
My $.02
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: S Woodside [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:43 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] I have a dream

Well, it's a fairly minor dream. What I imagine is this: I have DSL. My 
neighbour has DSL. We also both have WiFi APs that can reach each 
other, and connect at order-of-magnitude faster than the DSL links. 
What I dream is this: That we start routing internet across the link. 
When I start pulling packets off the internet, they can come to me not 
only through my own DSL but from hers as well. I think this boils down 
to an ultimate simplicity what all FN / CWNers want to achieve.

What needs to happen before I can realize my dream. I need to get an 
IPv6 address ... at least one ... for free. I need to be able to set up 
multi-homing in my home router. I need to be able to advertise my 
routing path to the internet. The internet needs to be able to handle 
at a massive scale (since every neighbour connects...). We need a /lot/ 
more IP addresses than we have now. I need to use a /real/ IP address 
because I can't route internet traffic through a NAT/site-local 
address. I need to have an ad-hoc routing algorithm that can set up 
this bridge and route across it really easily (because I'm not a 
trained network admin). Forget about BGP, AS, etc., we need a way to 
handle the massive overload of routes at local scale, at a regional 
scale, at a global scale -- something that will scale gracefully as the 
internet topology shifts from a tree to a massively connected mesh.

Simon

PS I'm cross-posting this to a bunch of lists because I don't know one 
it belongs on. If you think you know which is best, please tell me!

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:59:57 -0400

On Thursday, April 10, 2003, at 04:42  AM, Adam Megacz wrote:
> S Woodside <[email-masked]> writes:
>>>   1. The Internet is non-euclidean.  Packets almost never follow the
>>>      as-the-crow-flies shortest path from source to destination, so
>>>      geographic information is often misleading and suboptimal.
>
>> With wireless this is less true no? (because of the range 
>> limitations).
>
> Ah, yes.  We're probably looking at different applications here; most
> of my work is aimed at coming up with an internet-wide routing
> protocol.

I think we're talking about the same thing. I'm coming from the 
Community Wireless Network perspective, where the ideal situation is a 
seamless integration between co-operative style networks and the wired 
internet. Ideally, that means, that the protocol used in both is the 
same, so that the massive-multihoming/mesh style network that CWN 
people would like to develop, will be able to route internet traffic. 
For that to work, requires massive scalability.

Consider that there may be broad "swathes" of area that are connected 
in a mesh fashion because there is no broadband wired infrastructure 
available. Certain parts of the mesh might have wired links because 
they are in the right place, or they are "injection points" where 
people have banded together to fund a higher-priced wired link. So 
that, arbitrary points in the mesh would be connected to the wired 
internet.

If it can be made to work ... there are broad advantages as the 
marginal cost of spreading the network into rural / unconnected areas 
would be zero. (perhaps not, but there are incentives in such a 
situation to be closer to a connection point / to bring a connection 
point closer to oneself)

> By the way, there are some grad students at Rice who've been able to
> do [2-D] triangulation with a pair of off-the-shelf 802.11 base
> stations.  Pretty neat stuff.

Cool. I hear that http://www.wifimaps.com/ also has some kind of 
triangulation system based on massive wardriving data!

simon

>   - a

--
www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel