Subject: [manet] Classification of autoconfiguration protocols

From: Fábio Buiati <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:47:07 -0300

How can we classify the autoconfiguration protocols?

I think about 2 categories:

Classification regarding the autoconfiguration process:
* Stateless
* Stateful

Classification taking into account the process for detection of duplicated
addresses:
* Conflict-free allocation
* Conflict-detection allocation
* Best-effort allocation

And another possibility, which is:
* Passive DAD
* Active DAD

Am I correct?
How can we organized all this?

---------------------------------------------------
Fábio Mesquita Buiati
Universidade de Brasília - UnB Brazil
email - [email-masked]
---------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: mase <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:59:27 +0900

Hi Fabio,

In my view, IP address autoconfiguration for MANET can broadly be 
classified into Stateless and Stateful approaches. In the stateless 
approach, a free node (a node without MANET address) obtains its own IP 
address by itself (self-assignment). The stateless approch includes random 
assignment, prophet assignment and MAC address-based assignment. In the 
stateful approach, a free node asks one of the neighbor MANET node to work 
as the proxy to obtain an IP address. The stateful approach includes 
address block separation-based assignment and busy address sharing-based 
assignment.

On the other hand, duplicate address detection (DAD) can be classified into 
proactive and reactive approaches. In the proactive approach, DAD process 
occurs when address assignment is done. In the reactive approach, DAD 
occurs in process of MANET routing operation.

For example, the following combinations are possible.
Stateless assignment + Proactive DAD
Stateless assignment + Proactive DAD + Reactive DAD
Stateful assignment + Reactive DAD

I believe that any assignment methods cannot guarantee duplication 
(conflict) free assignment under MANET environment, where MANET patition 
and merge may occur. This is the reason, why DAD is required. Note that 
proactive assignment cannot guarantee perfect detection. This is the reason 
why reactive DAD is required, I am happy to hear any comments on my view.

Regards,
Kenichi Mase, Niigata University, Japan

At 11:47 03/08/29 -0300, F$BaC(Bio Buiati wrote:
>F$BaC(Bio Mesquita Buiati
>Universidade de Bras$ByM(Bia - UnB Brazil

---

From: "Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:23:49 +0900

Hi Fábio,

I agree to your classification, taking it by and large.
I'd like to comment.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fábio Buiati" <[email-masked]>

>Classification regarding the autoconfiguration process:
I agree.

>* Conflict-detection allocation

Prophet allocation can be added, which has been published in INFOCOM2003.
 http://www.ieee-infocom.org/2003/papers/32_02.PDF

>And another possibility, which is:
Additionally, in the respect of DAD,
we can categorize DADs as follows;
 * Strong DAD
 * Weak DAD
 * Hybrid DAD (the combination of Strong DAD & Weak DAD, or Strong DAD & Passive DAD)

/Paul

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
&jw™¨¥Šx%ŠËfjw‰ë_¢¸!¶Úlÿü0ÃXžµú+ƒùšŠYšŸùb²Ø§~æjw