Subject: Re: [manet] draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-01

From: Emmanuel Baccelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:26:40 +0200

Hi Abdussalam,

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> What is the different between : a) specific IP interface
> configuration, as described in RFC 5889, and b) specific routing
> protocols running on these interfaces, such as
> [RFC3626], [RFC3561], [RFC5449] ?
>
>

The difference is quite self-explanatory. On one hand RFC 5889
describes default rules that should apply when assigning IP
addresses/prefixes to an interface on a wireless multihop network (for
instance, a MANET). On the other hand RFC3626, RFC3561, and RFC5449 specify
each a routing protocol, that can function on a wireless multihop network.

regards,

Emmanuel

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 10:02:43 +0200

Hi Emmanuel,

The confusion is when I read the new draft updated 23 May 2012, of the
addition section 5 in the draft  as I included below, is that it gives
two options of IP runing on wireless multihop nets and [FUNKFEUER],
[FREIFUNK], using a) OR b) , and my question was/is what is the
difference as usually we need a interface-configuration-model, and
routing-model together to run. In addition IMO we need also to
include/define the subnet-model. I think this was mentioned in a wg
meeting by Mr.Cole.

Secondly, I think routing protocols interfaces/links are defined
differently by some routers (OLSR definitions). IMO having the DLEP
protocol in mind now will change the old concepts in MANET. Please see
the following comments:

1- Comments on RFC5889
5889> however, there is no canonical method for determining a given IP interface
configuration.
AB> RFC5889 is a production of autoconfig WG which is closed now, and
I think we should discuss in our group if this RFC5889 really
discribes the ad hoc configuration.

5889> Link-level connectivity is generally qualified as undetermined when
it is unplanned and/or time-varying in character. Ad hoc networks
are typical examples of networks with undetermined link-level
connectivity.
AB> what is meaning undetermined links? it is not right/logical way to
discribe such links behavior/logic. I think it will be correct only
for RFC3626 and RFC6130 interfaces not for RFC3561, but in the draft
it includes AODV as using the interface config of RFC5889.

AB> RFC5889 does not define links or interfaces like in RFC3626. IMO I
realy take the definition in RFC3753 as the more correct.

2- Comments/discussions in one of WG meetings
In WG 82 meeting it was mentioned (Bob Cole and Teco discussions):
BC> that subnet-models are not defined But in DLEP it looks at two
subnet-models (different models; e.g. radio subnet-models,
sat-subnet-models). We are defining IP over a subnet, but the subnet
is not defined. Then we don’t know how to define control protocols,
data-packet-formats, and managements-models without having a subnet
model in mind.
TB> In sat-comms the up-link and down-link can be very different. So
for different nodes on same carrier can be different data rates, SNR,
etc. so it is important that DLEP include the link metrics, even if it
is a full connected subnet.
BC> the subnet depends on the link of the subnet-underlying model,
The semantics of link up and down are determined by the underlying.

In conclusion, I hope you consider these comments in the future
virsions of draft, which I beleive can make big difference in avoiding
my confusions and the group's concerns as they discussed in the
meeting 82.

Best regards

Abdussalam Baryun
University of glamorgan, UK.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The draft draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-01 adds section 5:

5. IP over Multi-hop Ad Hoc Wireless

       While the above-described characteristics of packet transmission over
       multi-hop ad hoc wireless networks are not the default
       characteristics expected by IP [RFC6250], it is possible and
       desirable to run IP over such networks.  Over the last decade,
       numerous example of such networks running IP have turned up,
       including [FUNKFEUER], [FREIFUNK] among many other examples.  IP has
       been running over such networks through the use of:

          specific IP interface configuration, as described in RFC 5889
          [RFC5889], or

          specific routing protocols running on these interfaces, such as
          [RFC3626] [RFC3561] [RFC5449] for instance.

       Thus, even though the physical effects described in this document
       impose significant requirements for enhancing the robustness of
       protocol designs for routing and topology management, the experience
       in the projects described in the cited references shows that useful
       networks can be designed and operated using well-understood
       techniques.  It is thus possible to shield other IP protocols running
       on other interfaces from the unusual characteristics experienced over
       multi-hop ad hoc wireless networks.  Note however that some protocols
       are still more appropriate than others when interfaces to multi-hop
       ad hoc wireless networks are involved in the communication.  For
       instance, for applications written to run over both UDP and TCP, the
       latter choice may be preferred in situations with relatively high
       packet loss rates.  But such choices must be based on application
       requirements.

++++++++++++++++++
On 5/31/12, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> this new document draft 'baccelli-manet-multihop-comm.' is now
> referencing 5889, but not sure if we need it in the draft or in the
> group, the model it represents is not understood so far for me, but I
> think it needs to be discussed. The question is:
>
> Thanking you,
> AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 10:41:58 +0200

Hi Emmanuel and Charlie,

Please take RFC4903 into the work body, because IMO it is important
for the subject I-D and it is nice to reference RFC4903 in the I-D
because it does not reference it (i.e. the RFC4903 is in the reference
section but nothing in the body refers to it).

Please also read below discussion. I will add that RFC4903 focused
more on L3 models and not L2 models, however, there are some
interesting information for L2 models which I will include and
reference in the draft I am working on.

============  Possible Duplication  ===================

UH>I think it would be wrong to define such a multi-link subnet (for the
>reasons the IAB described in in RFC4903, and that we tried to convey
>at length in AUTOCONF).

I just now finished reading RFC4903 and thank you that you brought it
to my attention ( I will include in my draft), however, I see that it
considers issue of L3 link models not L2 link models. There are big
difference between L3 and L2.

RFC4903>There can be any number of layer 2
devices (bridges, switches, access points, etc.) in the middle
of the link.

AB> meaning the total link that includes the path between two node-interfaces.

RFC4903>Links that appear as NBMA links at layer 3 are problematic. Instead,
if a link is an NBMA link at layer 2, then protocol designers should
define some mechanism such that it appears as either the multi-access
link model or point-to-point link model at layer 3.

AB> please read above----> designers SHOULD define some mechanism such
that it appears as either the multi-access.......

AB> I just wanted to write a draft to define L2 network technology and
follow the RFC4903, so the RFC4903 is not against but with my
approach. Please note that I don't want to define the protocol to be
dependent on the L2 technology, but I want the DESIGNERS to KNOW what
they are looking as Mr.Clausen mentioned in the WG 77 meeting, that we
define assumptions/conditions before looking at our protocols.

I appreciate that you educated me regarding the RFC4903 it is very
important to read I admit that I missed. Thanks,

==================================================

Thanking you,

Best Regards

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:40:15 +0200

Hi Emmanuel and Perkins,

To add to my previous posts, I RECOMMEND also to include Mobile-IP
[RFC6275] to be considered and referenced with its relations to the
draft models,

Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
=================

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:49:34 -0700

Hello folks,

Since Mobile IP is an infrastructure protocol, and the draft under 
discussion
focusses on neighborhood effects instead of more distant connectivity,
I don't think there is a close enough relationship to cover Mobile IP.
But I appreciate your interest - thanks!

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 6/26/2012 4:40 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.