Subject: RE: [manet] Re: MANET definition of a neighbor

From: "DANIEL BYRNE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:18:47 -0500

Yeah, why choose!?  Seems logical.  In fact I was thinking something
similar.  Using nature as a guide.  Light, Electromagnetic Radiation,
Photons, etc. are transmited and all directions, and nearly everyone and
everything around interacts with the ambient light. Every piece of
clothing in a tailor's shop for instance will interact with the ambient
light and reflect its color and texture, ie. (forward the packet) albeit
on his own frequency.  If we could just follow this simple model but
make the forwarding of packets more intelligent.  

I haven't read past the introduction of the paper, so just let me
expound on what I was thinking.

- Links do not neccessisarily need to be pre-established.  Just
broadcast assuming someone is listening.  If you in turn hear your
broadcast retransmitted, then assume it is on its way.

- Tx Packets may include a preferred destination.  If for some
reason,(lost packet, garbled data, congestion, buffer overrun, etc.) the
packet gets tossed at the preferred destination.  Another listening
station within earshot can wait to hear from the preferred station. If
he doesn't hear it then he is free to forward the packet to the next
hop.

"Three observations, and a question: (1) Any choice of a single receiver
may be a bad choice, most of the time.  (2) The link conditions may not
outlast the decision process.  (3) You will broadcast the packet at the
physical layer, anyway---i.e., more than one receiver will receive it.
So, why choose?  (It only occurs to me to ask because I have fallen
under the influence of the Roofnet ExOR[1] study.)

Dave

[1]
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/roofnet:exor-sigcomm05/roofnet_exor-sig
comm05.pdf"

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
[email-masked]      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933

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

---

From: Justin Yackoski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 13:37:25 -0400

> he doesn't hear it then he is free to forward the packet to the next

This concept is similar to Witness Aided Routing, and 2 newer 
cross-layer protocols (which also reference some other related concepts) 
where some subset of your neighbors are able to respond and forward, and 
one is elected on a per-packet basis if needed.

- Cross-Layer Inference-based Fast Link Error Recovery (CIFLER). 
Yackoski, J. Shen, C.-C. WCNC 2006
- Guesswork: robust routing in an uncertain world. Parker, T. and 
Langendoen, K. MASS 2005

Justin

-- 
Justin Yackoski
DEGAS Networking Group
Dept. Of Computer and Info. Sciences
University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711
http://degas.cis.udel.edu