Subject: [manet] The Problem of Alien Node

From: "Yasser A. Lotfy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:40:01 -0400

Hi,

I hope you read the attached (word) document which raises awareness of the problem of alien node. Sorry I have to make it in MS-Word since some of the symbols can not be done as text.

The problem is simply due to the confusion that takes place when gateways announce there ability to forward packets to generic addresses. Some local ad-hoc nodes may fall in this generic address range. Therefore, packets may (incorrectly) be forwarded to GW. I hope 
to get feedback if any solution currently exist to this problem. 

yasser
---
***********************************************
A train station is the place where trains stop,
A bus station is the place where buses stop,
On my desk they installed a workstation !!
***********************************************

____________________________________________________________
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005

---

From: Manish Karir <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:02:42 -0400

I'm sorry but the point that you are trying to get across is not very 
clear, and your terminology is quite confusing...
perhaps it would become clearer if we knew what your references 
were...[047-01] and [048-01].

when building a scenario that incorportes both terrestrial and ad hoc 
nodes, it is best to use address in MANET_PREFIX to identify ad hoc 
nodes.  this way the gateway knows which address are in manet and which 
are in terrestrial network.  These address spaces should be mutually 
exclusive, or you are going to run into the problems that you 
describe(atleast thats what I think you are talking about).

alternately, if you decide that the two address spaces can intermingle, 
then you need to run complex registration/deregistration protocols at 
the gateway to inform the gateway which addresses(nodes) are in the 
manet.(some hybrid form of MIP).

-manish

Yasser A. Lotfy wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I hope you read the attached (word) document which raises awareness of the 

> problem of alien node. Sorry I have to make it in MS-Word since some of the symbols

> can not be done as text.
> 
> The problem is simply due to the confusion that takes place when gateways announce

> there ability to forward packets to generic addresses. Some local ad-hoc nodes may fall

> in this generic address range. Therefore, packets may (incorrectly) be forwarded to GW.

> I hope 

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: "HyunWook Cha" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:35:59 +0900

Hi yasser,
I think that you are considering the case where a manet has several
partitions, and souce and destination node reside in different
partitions and LAA(local alien address) of the destination node is
assigned from a gateway which is different from chosen gateway by source
node.
If so, I do not see any problem. If a link in ad hoc extension through
which packets destined to the destination node traverse fails, sender
will be notified by ICMP destination unreachable message from the
destination side gateway and it will do host route discovery in case of
reactive routing protocols such as AODV, DSR.
While this event does not occur, communiation between source and
destination will continue without any problem.

HyunWook Cha

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Yasser A. Lotfy
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 9:40 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] The Problem of Alien Node

Hi,

I hope you read the attached (word) document which raises awareness of
the problem of alien node. Sorry I have to make it in MS-Word since some
of the symbols can not be done as text.

The problem is simply due to the confusion that takes place when
gateways announce there ability to forward packets to generic addresses.
Some local ad-hoc nodes may fall in this generic address range.
Therefore, packets may (incorrectly) be forwarded to GW. I hope 
to get feedback if any solution currently exist to this problem. 

yasser
---