Linux Routing Table

I think I agree most of the time with your comments but, could you please elaborate a bit more on your last point (transport capacity bps/m increases with transmit power)? I do not understand why is this.

Assume you transmit at a power level P over a link of distance d. The SNR at the receiver translates into a "reception probability" p_r (the probability that a packet is received correctly). Given a certain bandwidth and this probability p_r, the throughput can be determined. If the transmit power is increased, we may consider two cases: - We keep the same receiver node. Over the same distance d, the average SNR and thus p_r increase, resulting in a higher throughput. Multiplied by d, this also leads to a higher transport capcity.

- We choose a different receiver at distance d2>d such that the SNR at this new receiver is the same as the previous one. Then p_r and the throughput remain the same, but the transport capacity will increase by a factor d2/d.

In practice, we will mostly opt for the second case, i.e., choosing a more distant receiver to reduce the number of hops. If the SNR (and, accordingly, p_r) at transmit power P are already reasonably high, then the benefit in the first case is negligible. For example, if we increase the transmit power to 10*P, we will gain only a few percent in the first case, whereas the second case leads to an improvement (of the transport capacity) of about 100% (depending on the large-scale path loss exponent).

My=20 answer:

Think out = of the=20 box. There is more to networking than IEEE802. There are = problems=20 trying to create ad-hoc networks when you only have protocols which = assume the=20 presence of network managers, human intervention, long-term = presence. =20 Speed of connection and ease of removal of services/users is = important. If=20 it takes 20 minutes to set up a network connection between 2 laptops = (about=20 average for windows 3.11 some years ago), how many people would want to = do=20 it. Dumping data to floppy would be easier. The people who = have=20 worked on WLAN have been creating new protocols to speed up network=20 connection. Some of this work has been done in the operating = system/device=20 drivers etc. It is now fairly easy and fast to connect a PC to a=20 network. What about connecting other things to the network? = How easy=20 is it to add a printer? your PDA? Mobile Phone? Microwave = oven? =20 (Don't laugh, Toshiba have one with Bluetooth). =20

There are devices around where = a network=20 connection would be very useful, once in a while, where the cost & = battery=20 consumption of WLAN is prohibitive. Toys are currently a = cutting-edge=20 example of this. Sony's Adibo robots, LEGO's Mindstorm kits, even = infants=20 toys can gain extra impact/functions/usability if they can have a = network=20 connection.

Today's network protocols are=20 useful. They are not complete. Every day new applications = arise=20 where network implementation would be that little bit easier=20 if.........

=20 Martin Layley

=20 SERI

-----Original Message-----
From: Berner Vegge=20 [mailto:bernervegge@hotmail.com]
Sent: 15 August 2002=20 09:26
To: manet@ietf.org
Cc:=20 BernerVegge@hotmail.com
Subject: [manet] Using WLAN with = base=20 stations instead of Ad-Hoc routing?

Hello!

I am trying to come up with arguments why we need Mobile Ad-Hoc = Networks=20 with special routing algorithms. Couldn't we rather use a WLAN with=20 basestations? Base Stations are today rather cheap and not very heavy, = so I=20 assume they could be carried around just as easy as an Ad-Hoc = node.

Can anyone help me with arguments why we need Ad-Hoc routing = protocols=20 and why
WLAN with basestations is not good enough?

Thanks !

BR Berner

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click=20 Here
_______________________________________________ manet = mailing list=20 manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet=20

Hmm. I've checked my diary and today is definitely not = April=20 1st. Sometimes the = questions=20 that seem silly can be very = profound.

My=20 answer:

Today's network protocols are=20 useful. They are not complete. Every day new applications = arise=20 where network implementation would be that little bit easier=20 if.........

=20 Martin Layley

=20 SERI

-----Original Message-----
From: Berner Vegge=20 [mailto:bernervegge@hotmail.com]
Sent: 15 August 2002=20 09:26
To: manet@ietf.org
Cc:=20 BernerVegge@hotmail.com
Subject: [manet] Using WLAN with = base=20 stations instead of Ad-Hoc routing?

Hello!

I am trying to come up with arguments why we need Mobile Ad-Hoc = Networks=20 with special routing algorithms. Couldn't we rather use a WLAN with=20 basestations? Base Stations are today rather cheap and not very heavy, = so I=20 assume they could be carried around just as easy as an Ad-Hoc = node.

Can anyone help me with arguments why we need Ad-Hoc routing = protocols=20 and why
WLAN with basestations is not good enough?

Thanks !

BR Berner

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click=20 Here
_______________________________________________ manet = mailing list=20 manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01C24442.518C847C-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 15 08:10:26 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21667 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA23345; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:51:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA23319 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.grc.nasa.gov (seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov [128.156.10.12]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA21105 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:50:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by seraph3.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id D896A640CB for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from doldham.lerc.nasa.gov (doldham.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.102.106]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC 8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g7FBp8Bg007476; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:51:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Oldham Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:51:13 GMT Message-ID: <20020815.11511300@doldham.lerc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [manet] Using WLAN with base stations instead of Ad-Hoc routing? To: Berner Vegge Cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; StarOffice/5.2;Linux) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary= "------------=_4D4800729CA008DAEB78" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org --------------=_4D4800729CA008DAEB78 Content-Description: filename="text1.txt" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello: Did you get a chance to read the charter for this working group? The bas= e=20 station is a single point of failure where ad-hoc networks can=20 self-organize and adjust to the changing conditions without a lot of=20 human intervention. There are many applications that benefit from ad-hoc= =20 networks, especially where base stations cannot be deployed or are=20 destroyed. Examples are emergency relief activities needed in a=20 devastated area effected by a storm or attack, or for military operation= s=20 into unknown territory, or locations where it is hard to deploy a base=20 station to provide coverage, like in a mine shaft or in a canyon. In the= =20 future, there well be satellite clusters that have total communication = integration without a fixed infastructure. Also there well be future=20 applications that have not been dreamed up yet that well appear as the=20 technology is developed and deployed. I hope that helps. -- Daniel R. Oldham Ph.D. Computer Engineer Satellite Networks and Architectures Branch NASA Glenn Research Center 21000 Brookpark Road (MS 54-5) Cleveland OH 44135 216.433.6307 - voice 216.433.8705 - fax oldham@grc.nasa.gov Original Message dated 8/15/02, 4:26:04 AM Author: "Berner Vegge" Re: [manet] Using WLAN with base stations instead of Ad-Hoc routing?: Hello! I am trying to come up with arguments why we need Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks= =20 with special routing algorithms. Couldn't we rather use a WLAN with=20 basestations? Base Stations are today rather cheap and not very heavy, s= o=20 I assume they could be carried around just as easy as an Ad-Hoc node. =20 Can anyone help me with arguments why we need Ad-Hoc routing protocols=20 and why WLAN with basestations is not good enough?=20 =20 Thanks ! BR Berner Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here _______________________________________________ manet mailing list=20 manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet=20 --------------=_4D4800729CA008DAEB78 Content-Description: filename="text1.html" Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [manet] Using WLAN with base stations instead of Ad-Hoc rou<= /TITLE> <META NAME=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"StarOffice/5.2 (Linux)"> <META NAME=3D"CREATED" CONTENT=3D"20020815;7232200"> <META NAME=3D"CHANGEDBY" CONTENT=3D"Daniel Oldham"> <META NAME=3D"CHANGED" CONTENT=3D"20020815;7511200"> </HEAD> <BODY> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Hello:</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Did you get a chance to read the charter= for this working group? The base station is a single point of failure where ad-hoc networks can self-organize and adjust to the changing conditions without a lot of human intervention. There are many applications that benefit from ad-hoc networks, especially where base stations cannot be deployed or are destroyed. Examples are emergency relief activities needed in a devastated area effected by a storm or attack, or for military operations into unknown territory, or locations where it is hard to deploy a base station to provide coverage, like in a mine shaft or in a canyon. In the future, there well be satellite clusters that have total communication integration without a fixed infastructure. Also there well be future applications that have not been dreamed up yet that well appear as the technology is developed and deployed. I hope that helps.</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">--</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Daniel R. Oldham Ph.D.</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Computer Engineer</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Satellite Networks and Architectures Branch</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">NASA Glenn Research Center</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">21000 Brookpark Road (MS 54-5)</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Cleveland OH 44135</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">216.433.6307 - voice</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">216.433.8705 - fax</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">oldham@grc.nasa.gov</P> <HR> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Original Message dated 8/15/02, 4:26:04 AM</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Author: "Berner Vegge" <bernervegge@hotmail.com></P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Re: [manet] Using WLAN with base station= s instead of Ad-Hoc routing?:</P> <HR> <P><BR><BR> </P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Hello!</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">I am trying to come up with arguments wh= y we need Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks with special routing algorithms. Couldn't we rather use a WLAN with basestations? Base Stations are today rather cheap and not very heavy, so I assume they could be carried around just as easy as an Ad-Hoc node.</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in"> </P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Can anyone help me with arguments why we= need Ad-Hoc routing protocols and why<BR>WLAN with basestations is not good enough? </P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in"> </P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Thanks !</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">BR Berner</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in"><BR> </P> <HR> <P>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: <A HREF=3D"http://g.m= sn.com/1HM1ENNO/c152??PI=3D44351">Click Here</A><BR>_______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet=20 </P> </BODY> </HTML> --------------=_4D4800729CA008DAEB78-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Aug 15 08:10:27 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21675 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA24849 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:11:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA23345; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:51:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA23319 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.grc.nasa.gov (seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov [128.156.10.12]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA21105 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:50:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by seraph3.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id D896A640CB for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from doldham.lerc.nasa.gov (doldham.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.102.106]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC 8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g7FBp8Bg007476; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:51:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Oldham <oldham@grc.nasa.gov> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:51:13 GMT Message-ID: <20020815.11511300@doldham.lerc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [manet] Using WLAN with base stations instead of Ad-Hoc routing? To: Berner Vegge <bernervegge@hotmail.com> Cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <F2051c00goZolmRBaYF00021d51@hotmail.com> References: <F2051c00goZolmRBaYF00021d51@hotmail.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; StarOffice/5.2;Linux) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary= "------------=_4D4800729CA008DAEB78" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org --------------=_4D4800729CA008DAEB78 Content-Description: filename="text1.txt" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello: Did you get a chance to read the charter for this working group? The bas= e=20 station is a single point of failure where ad-hoc networks can=20 self-organize and adjust to the changing conditions without a lot of=20 human intervention. There are many applications that benefit from ad-hoc= =20 networks, especially where base stations cannot be deployed or are=20 destroyed. Examples are emergency relief activities needed in a=20 devastated area effected by a storm or attack, or for military operation= s=20 into unknown territory, or locations where it is hard to deploy a base=20 station to provide coverage, like in a mine shaft or in a canyon. In the= =20 future, there well be satellite clusters that have total communication = integration without a fixed infastructure. Also there well be future=20 applications that have not been dreamed up yet that well appear as the=20 technology is developed and deployed. I hope that helps. -- Daniel R. Oldham Ph.D. Computer Engineer Satellite Networks and Architectures Branch NASA Glenn Research Center 21000 Brookpark Road (MS 54-5) Cleveland OH 44135 216.433.6307 - voice 216.433.8705 - fax oldham@grc.nasa.gov Original Message dated 8/15/02, 4:26:04 AM Author: "Berner Vegge" <bernervegge@hotmail.com> Re: [manet] Using WLAN with base stations instead of Ad-Hoc routing?: Hello! I am trying to come up with arguments why we need Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks= =20 with special routing algorithms. Couldn't we rather use a WLAN with=20 basestations? Base Stations are today rather cheap and not very heavy, s= o=20 I assume they could be carried around just as easy as an Ad-Hoc node. =20 Can anyone help me with arguments why we need Ad-Hoc routing protocols=20 and why WLAN with basestations is not good enough?=20 =20 Thanks ! BR Berner Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here _______________________________________________ manet mailing list=20 manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet=20 --------------=_4D4800729CA008DAEB78 Content-Description: filename="text1.html" Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8= 859-1"> <TITLE>Re: [manet] Using WLAN with base stations instead of Ad-Hoc rou<= /TITLE> <META NAME=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"StarOffice/5.2 (Linux)"> <META NAME=3D"CREATED" CONTENT=3D"20020815;7232200"> <META NAME=3D"CHANGEDBY" CONTENT=3D"Daniel Oldham"> <META NAME=3D"CHANGED" CONTENT=3D"20020815;7511200"> </HEAD> <BODY> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Hello:</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Did you get a chance to read the charter= for this working group? The base station is a single point of failure where ad-hoc networks can self-organize and adjust to the changing conditions without a lot of human intervention. There are many applications that benefit from ad-hoc networks, especially where base stations cannot be deployed or are destroyed. Examples are emergency relief activities needed in a devastated area effected by a storm or attack, or for military operations into unknown territory, or locations where it is hard to deploy a base station to provide coverage, like in a mine shaft or in a canyon. In the future, there well be satellite clusters that have total communication integration without a fixed infastructure. Also there well be future applications that have not been dreamed up yet that well appear as the technology is developed and deployed. I hope that helps.</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">--</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Daniel R. Oldham Ph.D.</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Computer Engineer</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Satellite Networks and Architectures Branch</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">NASA Glenn Research Center</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">21000 Brookpark Road (MS 54-5)</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Cleveland OH 44135</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">216.433.6307 - voice</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">216.433.8705 - fax</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">oldham@grc.nasa.gov</P> <HR> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Original Message dated 8/15/02, 4:26:04 AM</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Author: "Berner Vegge" <bernervegge@hotmail.com></P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Re: [manet] Using WLAN with base station= s instead of Ad-Hoc routing?:</P> <HR> <P><BR><BR> </P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Hello!</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">I am trying to come up with arguments wh= y we need Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks with special routing algorithms. Couldn't we rather use a WLAN with basestations? Base Stations are today rather cheap and not very heavy, so I assume they could be carried around just as easy as an Ad-Hoc node.</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in"> </P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Can anyone help me with arguments why we= need Ad-Hoc routing protocols and why<BR>WLAN with basestations is not good enough? </P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in"> </P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">Thanks !</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in">BR Berner</P> <P STYLE=3D"margin-bottom: 0in"><BR> </P> <HR> <P>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: <A HREF=3D"http://g.m= sn.com/1HM1ENNO/c152??PI=3D44351">Click Here</A><BR>_______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet=20 </P> </BODY> </HTML> --------------=_4D4800729CA008DAEB78-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 15 17:24:43 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16651 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:24:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06937; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06903 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:07:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email.nist.gov (email.nist.gov [129.6.2.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15983 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:06:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gwialo (camelot.antd.nist.gov [129.6.50.51]) by email.nist.gov (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g7FL7M4j002647 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:07:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "Luke Klein-Berndt" <luke.klein-berndt@nist.gov> To: <manet@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [manet] Kernel AODV Update - v1.5 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:07:22 -0400 Message-ID: <LMEPJIBDDGLOMAJBLGOMEEBFCFAA.luke.klein-berndt@nist.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <LMEPJIBDDGLOMAJBLGOMIEFJCCAA.luke.klein-berndt@nist.gov> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am happy to announce an update to Kernel AODV. Kernel AODV is an implemention of AODV developed at NIST that runs in Linux as a Kernel Module. The update features: - Complies with v11 of the AODV draft - Monitors the signal strength of Neighboring nodes (Viewable in the routing table proc file) - Allows for Managed Internet Gatewaying onto an external network using NAT - Since it is a module it requires no kernel modifacation It is available at - http://w3.antd.nist.gov/wctg/aodv_kernel/ Thank you, Luke Klein-Berndt _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Aug 15 17:24:43 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16659 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:24:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA08791 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:26:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06937; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06903 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:07:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email.nist.gov (email.nist.gov [129.6.2.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15983 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:06:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gwialo (camelot.antd.nist.gov [129.6.50.51]) by email.nist.gov (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g7FL7M4j002647 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:07:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "Luke Klein-Berndt" <luke.klein-berndt@nist.gov> To: <manet@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [manet] Kernel AODV Update - v1.5 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:07:22 -0400 Message-ID: <LMEPJIBDDGLOMAJBLGOMEEBFCFAA.luke.klein-berndt@nist.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <LMEPJIBDDGLOMAJBLGOMIEFJCCAA.luke.klein-berndt@nist.gov> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am happy to announce an update to Kernel AODV. Kernel AODV is an implemention of AODV developed at NIST that runs in Linux as a Kernel Module. The update features: - Complies with v11 of the AODV draft - Monitors the signal strength of Neighboring nodes (Viewable in the routing table proc file) - Allows for Managed Internet Gatewaying onto an external network using NAT - Since it is a module it requires no kernel modifacation It is available at - http://w3.antd.nist.gov/wctg/aodv_kernel/ Thank you, Luke Klein-Berndt _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Fri Aug 16 22:01:06 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07268 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA10384; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:46:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA10351 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:46:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg (gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg [137.132.31.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06913 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maildom-MTA by gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg with Novell_GroupWise; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:43:18 +0800 Message-Id: <sd5e1ab6.045@gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.1 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:43:06 +0800 From: "Alvin C Valera Alvin" <stuvac@icr.a-star.edu.sg> To: <manet@ietf.org>, <jkaba@sarnoff.com> Subject: Re: [manet] marginal utility of retransmitting pkt after retrytimeout Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jim, Here is the summary of the simulation results: Packet Salvaging Off: (1) AODV - Packet salvaging is in the code but not used. Turning local repair on (and therefore packet salvaging) can increase packet delivery by 2-3% when there are 10 and 20 sources. At 30 and 40 sources, local repair somehow *adversely* affects the performance, lowering the packet delivery by 4-6%. (2) DSR - Drop by 8-10% in packet delivery ratio at 10 sources. The drop increases as the traffic or number of sources increases. Link Layer Feedback Off: (1) AODV - Packet delivery drops by 25-30%. The drop goes down to around 10% when there are 30 or more sources. (2) DSR - Packet delivery drops by 65-70% at 10 and 20 sources. The drop goes down to around 30% when there are 30 or more sources. I think the better performance of AODV can be attributed to its periodic "hello" broadcast to ascertain link status. Hence even when the link layer does not provide a quick feedback, the network layer will know, albeit a little bit later, that the link is down. On the other hand, the ns implementation of DSR relies heavily on the link layer feedback to ascertain link status. Best regards, Alvin _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Fri Aug 16 22:01:07 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07273 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA12316 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:02:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA10384; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:46:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA10351 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:46:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg (gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg [137.132.31.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06913 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maildom-MTA by gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg with Novell_GroupWise; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:43:18 +0800 Message-Id: <sd5e1ab6.045@gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.1 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:43:06 +0800 From: "Alvin C Valera Alvin" <stuvac@icr.a-star.edu.sg> To: <manet@ietf.org>, <jkaba@sarnoff.com> Subject: Re: [manet] marginal utility of retransmitting pkt after retrytimeout Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jim, Here is the summary of the simulation results: Packet Salvaging Off: (1) AODV - Packet salvaging is in the code but not used. Turning local repair on (and therefore packet salvaging) can increase packet delivery by 2-3% when there are 10 and 20 sources. At 30 and 40 sources, local repair somehow *adversely* affects the performance, lowering the packet delivery by 4-6%. (2) DSR - Drop by 8-10% in packet delivery ratio at 10 sources. The drop increases as the traffic or number of sources increases. Link Layer Feedback Off: (1) AODV - Packet delivery drops by 25-30%. The drop goes down to around 10% when there are 30 or more sources. (2) DSR - Packet delivery drops by 65-70% at 10 and 20 sources. The drop goes down to around 30% when there are 30 or more sources. I think the better performance of AODV can be attributed to its periodic "hello" broadcast to ascertain link status. Hence even when the link layer does not provide a quick feedback, the network layer will know, albeit a little bit later, that the link is down. On the other hand, the ns implementation of DSR relies heavily on the link layer feedback to ascertain link status. Best regards, Alvin _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Sat Aug 17 18:59:04 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05188 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA04006; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA03975 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uni10mr.unity.ncsu.edu (uni10mr.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.35]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04924 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unity.ncsu.edu (uni03wi.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.33]) by uni10mr.unity.ncsu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/N.20020613.01) with ESMTP id g7HMjeF09752 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200208172245.g7HMjeF09752@uni10mr.unity.ncsu.edu> User-Agent: IMHO/0.97.1 (Webmail for Roxen) To: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <42127439@dancer.Dartmouth.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Sudarshan N Raghavan <snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [152.14.51.205] Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:45:40 -500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] Terminal node acks Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Are there any ad-hoc routing protocols that use end-to-end acknowledgements for forwarding packets, instead of per-hop acknowledgements ? A end-to-end ack framework seems to be better suited for ad-hoc networks with unidirectional links. Most of the routing protocols seem to place an unnecessary load on intermediate nodes for acks and route maintainance (in addition to packet forwarding). Regards, Sudarshan N Raghavan Graduate Student, Computer Sc. NC State University _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Sat Aug 17 18:59:05 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05198 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA04800 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:00:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA04006; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA03975 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uni10mr.unity.ncsu.edu (uni10mr.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.35]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04924 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unity.ncsu.edu (uni03wi.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.33]) by uni10mr.unity.ncsu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/N.20020613.01) with ESMTP id g7HMjeF09752 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200208172245.g7HMjeF09752@uni10mr.unity.ncsu.edu> User-Agent: IMHO/0.97.1 (Webmail for Roxen) To: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <42127439@dancer.Dartmouth.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Sudarshan N Raghavan <snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [152.14.51.205] Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:45:40 -500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] Terminal node acks Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Are there any ad-hoc routing protocols that use end-to-end acknowledgements for forwarding packets, instead of per-hop acknowledgements ? A end-to-end ack framework seems to be better suited for ad-hoc networks with unidirectional links. Most of the routing protocols seem to place an unnecessary load on intermediate nodes for acks and route maintainance (in addition to packet forwarding). Regards, Sudarshan N Raghavan Graduate Student, Computer Sc. NC State University _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Sun Aug 18 15:33:20 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02080 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:33:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA23562; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA23538 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (barrichello.cs.ucr.edu [138.23.169.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01493 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5CDAAB599A2; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Mailbox-Line: From zye@cs.ucr.edu Sun Aug 18 12:08:15 2002 Received: from io.cs.ucr.edu (io.cs.ucr.edu [138.23.174.180]) by barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9911AB56AEE; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by io.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix, from userid 7296) id 076F626557; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by io.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F364825204; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:08:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Zhenqiang(Frank) Ye" <zye@cs.ucr.edu> To: Alvin C Valera Alvin <stuvac@icr.a-star.edu.sg> Cc: <manet@ietf.org>, <jkaba@sarnoff.com> Subject: Re: [manet] marginal utility of retransmitting pkt after retrytimeout In-Reply-To: <sd5e1ab6.045@gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208181206170.26242-100000@io.cs.ucr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.31 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Alvin C Valera Alvin wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Here is the summary of the simulation results: > > Packet Salvaging Off: > (1) AODV - Packet salvaging is in the code but not used. Turning local > repair on (and therefore packet salvaging) can increase packet delivery > by 2-3% when there are 10 and 20 sources. At 30 and 40 sources, local > repair somehow *adversely* affects the performance, lowering the packet > delivery by 4-6%. > > (2) DSR - Drop by 8-10% in packet delivery ratio at 10 sources. The drop > increases as the traffic or number of sources increases. > > Link Layer Feedback Off: > (1) AODV - Packet delivery drops by 25-30%. The drop goes down to around > 10% when there are 30 or more sources. > > (2) DSR - Packet delivery drops by 65-70% at 10 and 20 sources. The drop > goes down to around 30% when there are 30 or more sources. > > I think the better performance of AODV can be attributed to its periodic > "hello" broadcast to ascertain link status. Hence even when the link Are you sure the "hello" function is ON in AODV implementation of ns-2? > layer does not provide a quick feedback, the network layer will know, > albeit a little bit later, that the link is down. On the other hand, the > ns implementation of DSR relies heavily on the link layer feedback to > ascertain link status. > > Best regards, > Alvin > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Sun Aug 18 15:33:21 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02089 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:33:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA25102 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA23562; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA23538 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (barrichello.cs.ucr.edu [138.23.169.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01493 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5CDAAB599A2; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Mailbox-Line: From zye@cs.ucr.edu Sun Aug 18 12:08:15 2002 Received: from io.cs.ucr.edu (io.cs.ucr.edu [138.23.174.180]) by barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9911AB56AEE; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by io.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix, from userid 7296) id 076F626557; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by io.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F364825204; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:08:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Zhenqiang(Frank) Ye" <zye@cs.ucr.edu> To: Alvin C Valera Alvin <stuvac@icr.a-star.edu.sg> Cc: <manet@ietf.org>, <jkaba@sarnoff.com> Subject: Re: [manet] marginal utility of retransmitting pkt after retrytimeout In-Reply-To: <sd5e1ab6.045@gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208181206170.26242-100000@io.cs.ucr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.31 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Alvin C Valera Alvin wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Here is the summary of the simulation results: > > Packet Salvaging Off: > (1) AODV - Packet salvaging is in the code but not used. Turning local > repair on (and therefore packet salvaging) can increase packet delivery > by 2-3% when there are 10 and 20 sources. At 30 and 40 sources, local > repair somehow *adversely* affects the performance, lowering the packet > delivery by 4-6%. > > (2) DSR - Drop by 8-10% in packet delivery ratio at 10 sources. The drop > increases as the traffic or number of sources increases. > > Link Layer Feedback Off: > (1) AODV - Packet delivery drops by 25-30%. The drop goes down to around > 10% when there are 30 or more sources. > > (2) DSR - Packet delivery drops by 65-70% at 10 and 20 sources. The drop > goes down to around 30% when there are 30 or more sources. > > I think the better performance of AODV can be attributed to its periodic > "hello" broadcast to ascertain link status. Hence even when the link Are you sure the "hello" function is ON in AODV implementation of ns-2? > layer does not provide a quick feedback, the network layer will know, > albeit a little bit later, that the link is down. On the other hand, the > ns implementation of DSR relies heavily on the link layer feedback to > ascertain link status. > > Best regards, > Alvin > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Sun Aug 18 22:27:10 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09502 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA09416; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA09385 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg (gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg [137.132.31.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09194 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maildom-MTA by gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:03:50 +0800 Message-Id: <sd60c286.054@gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.1 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:03:31 +0800 From: "Alvin C Valera Alvin" <stuvac@icr.a-star.edu.sg> To: <zye@cs.ucr.edu>, <manet@ietf.org>, <jkaba@sarnoff.com> Subject: Re: [manet] marginal utility of retransmitting pkt after retrytimeout Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Frank, You're right that by default, periodic "hello" messages are turned off. But when you disable link layer feedback, it is turned on. The code is: if(strncasecmp(argv[1], "start", 2) == 0) { btimer.handle((Event*) 0); #ifndef AODV_LINK_LAYER_DETECTION htimer.handle((Event*) 0); ntimer.handle((Event*) 0); #endif rtimer.handle((Event*) 0); return TCL_OK; } Note that when we do not define AODV_LINK_LAYER_DETECTION, the htimer.handle() and ntimer.handle() are compiled. htimer is the hello timer and ntimer is the neighbor timeout timer. Best regards, Alvin >>> "Zhenqiang(Frank) Ye" <zye@cs.ucr.edu> 08/19/02 03:06 AM >>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Alvin C Valera Alvin wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Here is the summary of the simulation results: > > Packet Salvaging Off: > (1) AODV - Packet salvaging is in the code but not used. Turning local > repair on (and therefore packet salvaging) can increase packet delivery > by 2-3% when there are 10 and 20 sources. At 30 and 40 sources, local > repair somehow *adversely* affects the performance, lowering the packet > delivery by 4-6%. > > (2) DSR - Drop by 8-10% in packet delivery ratio at 10 sources. The drop > increases as the traffic or number of sources increases. > > Link Layer Feedback Off: > (1) AODV - Packet delivery drops by 25-30%. The drop goes down to around > 10% when there are 30 or more sources. > > (2) DSR - Packet delivery drops by 65-70% at 10 and 20 sources. The drop > goes down to around 30% when there are 30 or more sources. > > I think the better performance of AODV can be attributed to its periodic > "hello" broadcast to ascertain link status. Hence even when the link Are you sure the "hello" function is ON in AODV implementation of ns-2? > layer does not provide a quick feedback, the network layer will know, > albeit a little bit later, that the link is down. On the other hand, the > ns implementation of DSR relies heavily on the link layer feedback to > ascertain link status. > > Best regards, > Alvin > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Sun Aug 18 22:27:11 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09510 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA10186 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA09416; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA09385 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg (gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg [137.132.31.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09194 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maildom-MTA by gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:03:50 +0800 Message-Id: <sd60c286.054@gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.1 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:03:31 +0800 From: "Alvin C Valera Alvin" <stuvac@icr.a-star.edu.sg> To: <zye@cs.ucr.edu>, <manet@ietf.org>, <jkaba@sarnoff.com> Subject: Re: [manet] marginal utility of retransmitting pkt after retrytimeout Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Frank, You're right that by default, periodic "hello" messages are turned off. But when you disable link layer feedback, it is turned on. The code is: if(strncasecmp(argv[1], "start", 2) == 0) { btimer.handle((Event*) 0); #ifndef AODV_LINK_LAYER_DETECTION htimer.handle((Event*) 0); ntimer.handle((Event*) 0); #endif rtimer.handle((Event*) 0); return TCL_OK; } Note that when we do not define AODV_LINK_LAYER_DETECTION, the htimer.handle() and ntimer.handle() are compiled. htimer is the hello timer and ntimer is the neighbor timeout timer. Best regards, Alvin >>> "Zhenqiang(Frank) Ye" <zye@cs.ucr.edu> 08/19/02 03:06 AM >>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Alvin C Valera Alvin wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Here is the summary of the simulation results: > > Packet Salvaging Off: > (1) AODV - Packet salvaging is in the code but not used. Turning local > repair on (and therefore packet salvaging) can increase packet delivery > by 2-3% when there are 10 and 20 sources. At 30 and 40 sources, local > repair somehow *adversely* affects the performance, lowering the packet > delivery by 4-6%. > > (2) DSR - Drop by 8-10% in packet delivery ratio at 10 sources. The drop > increases as the traffic or number of sources increases. > > Link Layer Feedback Off: > (1) AODV - Packet delivery drops by 25-30%. The drop goes down to around > 10% when there are 30 or more sources. > > (2) DSR - Packet delivery drops by 65-70% at 10 and 20 sources. The drop > goes down to around 30% when there are 30 or more sources. > > I think the better performance of AODV can be attributed to its periodic > "hello" broadcast to ascertain link status. Hence even when the link Are you sure the "hello" function is ON in AODV implementation of ns-2? > layer does not provide a quick feedback, the network layer will know, > albeit a little bit later, that the link is down. On the other hand, the > ns implementation of DSR relies heavily on the link layer feedback to > ascertain link status. > > Best regards, > Alvin > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Mon Aug 19 12:03:00 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07145 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:03:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26266; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:39:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26238 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from godel.crhc.uiuc.edu (godel.crhc.uiuc.edu [130.126.142.156]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06238 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (nhv@localhost) by godel.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7JFdK600843; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:39:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:39:20 -0500 (CDT) From: Nitin H Vaidya <nhv@godel.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: <manet@ietf.org>, <mobicom@acm.org>, <sigmob@acm.org> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0208191038460.840-100000@godel.crhc.uiuc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] Wireless Security workshop -- advance registration deadline soon Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org Advance registration deadline soon (visit http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise for more information) --------------------------------------------------------------- Call for Participation ACM Workshop on Wireless Security (WiSe) in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002 September 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise Sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE A workshop on wireless security will be held in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002. The objective of this workshop is to bring together researchers from research communities in wireless networking, security, and dependability, with the goal of fostering interaction among them. With the increasing reliance on wireless networks, issues related to secure and dependable operation of such networks are gaining importance. For registration information, please visit http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise PRELIMINARY PROGRAM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 1 (8:30 - 10:00 a.m.) Securing Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols, M. Guerrero Zapata and N. Asokan (Nokia Research Center, Finland) Self-Organized Network Layer Security in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, H. Yang, X. Meng and S. Lu (University of California at Los Angeles) An On-Demand Secure Routing Protocol Resilent to Byzantine Failures, B. Awerbuch, D. Holmer, C. Nita-Rotaru and H. Rubens (Johns Hopkins University) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Poster session (10:15 - 11:15 p.m.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Invited Presentations (11:15 - 12:15) Information Assurance and Research Opportunities, D. Maughan, Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency Perspectives on Wireless Security T. Znati, National Science Foundation and University of Pittsburgh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 2 (1:30 - 3:00) Survivable Mobile Wireless Networks: Issues, Challenges, and Research Directions, R. Krishnan, R. Rosales Hain, A. W. Jackson, D. Levin, R. Ramanathan, J. Zao and J. P. G. Sterbenz (BBN Technologies) Secure Wireless Gateway, A. Godber and P. Dasgupta (Arizona State University) DoS and Authentication in Wireless Public Access Networks, D. B. Faria and D. R. Cheriton (Stanford University) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 3 (3:30 - 5:30) A Distributed Monitoring Mechanism in Wireless Sensor Networks, C.-F. Hsin and M. Liu (University of Michigan at Ann Arbor) Using Signal Processing to Analyze Wireless Data Traffic, C. Partridge, D. Cousins, A. W. Jackson, R. Krishnan, T. Saxena, and W. T. Strayer (BBN Technologies) Securing IPv6 Neighor Discovery, J. Arkko (Ericsson Research NomadicLab), T. Aura (Microsoft Research Cambridge), J. Kempf (DoCoMoLabs U.S.A.), V.-M. Mantyla, P. Nikander (Ericsson Research NomadicLab) and M. Roe (Microsoft Research Cambridge) Performance Analysis of Elliptic Curve Cryptography for SSL, V. Gupta, S. Gupta, Sh. Chang and D. Stebila (Sun Microsystems) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Aug 19 12:03:01 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07154 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA28681 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:04:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26266; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:39:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26238 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from godel.crhc.uiuc.edu (godel.crhc.uiuc.edu [130.126.142.156]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06238 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (nhv@localhost) by godel.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7JFdK600843; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:39:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:39:20 -0500 (CDT) From: Nitin H Vaidya <nhv@godel.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: <manet@ietf.org>, <mobicom@acm.org>, <sigmob@acm.org> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0208191038460.840-100000@godel.crhc.uiuc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] Wireless Security workshop -- advance registration deadline soon Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org Advance registration deadline soon (visit http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise for more information) --------------------------------------------------------------- Call for Participation ACM Workshop on Wireless Security (WiSe) in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002 September 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise Sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE A workshop on wireless security will be held in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002. The objective of this workshop is to bring together researchers from research communities in wireless networking, security, and dependability, with the goal of fostering interaction among them. With the increasing reliance on wireless networks, issues related to secure and dependable operation of such networks are gaining importance. For registration information, please visit http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise PRELIMINARY PROGRAM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 1 (8:30 - 10:00 a.m.) Securing Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols, M. Guerrero Zapata and N. Asokan (Nokia Research Center, Finland) Self-Organized Network Layer Security in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, H. Yang, X. Meng and S. Lu (University of California at Los Angeles) An On-Demand Secure Routing Protocol Resilent to Byzantine Failures, B. Awerbuch, D. Holmer, C. Nita-Rotaru and H. Rubens (Johns Hopkins University) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Poster session (10:15 - 11:15 p.m.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Invited Presentations (11:15 - 12:15) Information Assurance and Research Opportunities, D. Maughan, Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency Perspectives on Wireless Security T. Znati, National Science Foundation and University of Pittsburgh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 2 (1:30 - 3:00) Survivable Mobile Wireless Networks: Issues, Challenges, and Research Directions, R. Krishnan, R. Rosales Hain, A. W. Jackson, D. Levin, R. Ramanathan, J. Zao and J. P. G. Sterbenz (BBN Technologies) Secure Wireless Gateway, A. Godber and P. Dasgupta (Arizona State University) DoS and Authentication in Wireless Public Access Networks, D. B. Faria and D. R. Cheriton (Stanford University) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 3 (3:30 - 5:30) A Distributed Monitoring Mechanism in Wireless Sensor Networks, C.-F. Hsin and M. Liu (University of Michigan at Ann Arbor) Using Signal Processing to Analyze Wireless Data Traffic, C. Partridge, D. Cousins, A. W. Jackson, R. Krishnan, T. Saxena, and W. T. Strayer (BBN Technologies) Securing IPv6 Neighor Discovery, J. Arkko (Ericsson Research NomadicLab), T. Aura (Microsoft Research Cambridge), J. Kempf (DoCoMoLabs U.S.A.), V.-M. Mantyla, P. Nikander (Ericsson Research NomadicLab) and M. Roe (Microsoft Research Cambridge) Performance Analysis of Elliptic Curve Cryptography for SSL, V. Gupta, S. Gupta, Sh. Chang and D. Stebila (Sun Microsystems) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Mon Aug 19 14:26:00 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11931 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06254; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06211 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11401 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA13955 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2002081914085525128 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:08:55 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20020819140617.0149f4d0@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:09:03 -0400 To: manet@ietf.org From: Joe Macker <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [manet] mailman upgrade at ietf.org Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org All: ietf.org is upgrading from mailman 1.0 to 2.0 tomorrow. This should be transparent to the group with perhaps a slight outage period. -Joe _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Aug 19 14:26:00 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11942 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA07331 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:27:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06254; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06211 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11401 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA13955 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2002081914085525128 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:08:55 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20020819140617.0149f4d0@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:09:03 -0400 To: manet@ietf.org From: Joe Macker <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [manet] mailman upgrade at ietf.org Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org All: ietf.org is upgrading from mailman 1.0 to 2.0 tomorrow. This should be transparent to the group with perhaps a slight outage period. -Joe _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Mon Aug 19 14:41:52 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12373 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:41:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA07018; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06989 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cse.uta.edu (cse.uta.edu [129.107.12.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11780 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uta.edu (infer.uta.edu [129.107.57.25]) by cse.uta.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA12009; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:23:37 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D61376B.AB217ECC@uta.edu> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:22:35 -0500 From: Gergely Zaruba <zaruba@uta.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'manet@ietf.org'" <manet@ietf.org>, performance@haven.epm.ornl.gov Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------525896B7C438F10D472D859E" Subject: [manet] [Fwd: URGENT: WOWMOM2002 Publicity] Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org --------------525896B7C438F10D472D859E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CALL FOR PARTICIPATION WoWMoM 2002 The 5th ACM Workshop on Wireless Mobile Multimedia http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002 September 28, 2002 - Atlanta, Georgia (in conjunction with MobiCom'2002) ********** Early registration Deadline: August 22, 2002 *********** WoWMoM is the premier international forum, sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE, for discussions between researchers, practitioners and students interested in the symbiosis of mobile computers, wireless networks,and multimedia systems. The WoWMoM 2002 technical program (http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002) presents 15 papers organized into four sessions: i) Multimedia over Wireless and Mobile Networksii) Mobile Ad Hoc Networksiii) Wireless and Mobile Networks Performanceiv) Unicast and Multicast in Next Generation Wireless Networks The technical program also includes a panel session. The panel, organized by D. Raychaudhuri (WINLAB/Rutgers University), discusses the future technologies for wireless multimedia networking: "Which Wireless Network Technology will Prevail for ScalableMobile Multimedia Services: Cellular (3G/4G) vs. WLAN? Both? Neither?". The workshop program is available at http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002 Workshop registration: The deadline for early registration is August 22,2002. Best Regards, Marco ContiWoWMoM 2002, TPC co-chair --------------525896B7C438F10D472D859E Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <center>CALL FOR PARTICIPATION</center> <center><b><font face="Times"><font size=+1>WoWMoM 2002</font></font></b></center> <center>The 5th ACM Workshop on Wireless Mobile Multimedia</center> <center><u><font color="#000000"><A HREF="http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002">http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002</A></font></u></center> <center><x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab><font color="#000000">September 28, 2002 - Atlanta, Georgia</font></center> <center><font color="#000000">(in conjunction with MobiCom'2002)</font></center> ********** Early registration Deadline: August 22, 2002 *********** <font color="#000000">WoWMoM is the premier international forum, sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE,</font> <br><font color="#000000">for discussions between researchers, practitioners and students</font> <br><font color="#000000">interested in the symbiosis of mobile computers, wireless networks,</font><font color="#000000">and multimedia systems.</font> The WoWMoM 2002 technical program (<u><font color="#000000"><A HREF="http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002">http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002</A></font></u>) presents 15 papers organized into four sessions: <font color="#000000"><font size=-1>i) Multimedia over Wireless and Mobile Networks</font></font><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>ii) Mobile Ad Hoc Networks</font></font><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>iii) Wireless and Mobile Networks Performance</font></font><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>iv) Unicast and Multicast in Next Generation Wireless Networks</font></font> The technical program also includes a panel session. The panel, organized by<font color="#000000"> D. Raychaudhuri (WINLAB/Rutgers University)</font>, discusses <font color="#000000"> the future technologies for wireless multimedia</font> networking: "<font color="#000000">Which Wireless Network Technology will Prevail for Scalable<x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab>Mobile Multimedia Services: Cellular (3G/4G) vs. WLAN? Both? Neither?</font>". The workshop program is available at<u><font color="#000000"> <A HREF="http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002">http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002</A></font></u> Workshop registration: The deadline for early registration is August 22,2002. Best Regards, Marco ContiWoWMoM 2002, TPC co-chair</html> --------------525896B7C438F10D472D859E-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Aug 19 14:41:57 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12381 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:41:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA08666 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:43:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA07018; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06989 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cse.uta.edu (cse.uta.edu [129.107.12.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11780 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uta.edu (infer.uta.edu [129.107.57.25]) by cse.uta.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA12009; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:23:37 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D61376B.AB217ECC@uta.edu> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:22:35 -0500 From: Gergely Zaruba <zaruba@uta.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'manet@ietf.org'" <manet@ietf.org>, performance@haven.epm.ornl.gov Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------525896B7C438F10D472D859E" Subject: [manet] [Fwd: URGENT: WOWMOM2002 Publicity] Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org --------------525896B7C438F10D472D859E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CALL FOR PARTICIPATION WoWMoM 2002 The 5th ACM Workshop on Wireless Mobile Multimedia http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002 September 28, 2002 - Atlanta, Georgia (in conjunction with MobiCom'2002) ********** Early registration Deadline: August 22, 2002 *********** WoWMoM is the premier international forum, sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE, for discussions between researchers, practitioners and students interested in the symbiosis of mobile computers, wireless networks,and multimedia systems. The WoWMoM 2002 technical program (http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002) presents 15 papers organized into four sessions: i) Multimedia over Wireless and Mobile Networksii) Mobile Ad Hoc Networksiii) Wireless and Mobile Networks Performanceiv) Unicast and Multicast in Next Generation Wireless Networks The technical program also includes a panel session. The panel, organized by D. Raychaudhuri (WINLAB/Rutgers University), discusses the future technologies for wireless multimedia networking: "Which Wireless Network Technology will Prevail for ScalableMobile Multimedia Services: Cellular (3G/4G) vs. WLAN? Both? Neither?". The workshop program is available at http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002 Workshop registration: The deadline for early registration is August 22,2002. Best Regards, Marco ContiWoWMoM 2002, TPC co-chair --------------525896B7C438F10D472D859E Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <center>CALL FOR PARTICIPATION</center> <center><b><font face="Times"><font size=+1>WoWMoM 2002</font></font></b></center> <center>The 5th ACM Workshop on Wireless Mobile Multimedia</center> <center><u><font color="#000000"><A HREF="http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002">http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002</A></font></u></center> <center><x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab><font color="#000000">September 28, 2002 - Atlanta, Georgia</font></center> <center><font color="#000000">(in conjunction with MobiCom'2002)</font></center> ********** Early registration Deadline: August 22, 2002 *********** <font color="#000000">WoWMoM is the premier international forum, sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE,</font> <br><font color="#000000">for discussions between researchers, practitioners and students</font> <br><font color="#000000">interested in the symbiosis of mobile computers, wireless networks,</font><font color="#000000">and multimedia systems.</font> The WoWMoM 2002 technical program (<u><font color="#000000"><A HREF="http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002">http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002</A></font></u>) presents 15 papers organized into four sessions: <font color="#000000"><font size=-1>i) Multimedia over Wireless and Mobile Networks</font></font><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>ii) Mobile Ad Hoc Networks</font></font><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>iii) Wireless and Mobile Networks Performance</font></font><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>iv) Unicast and Multicast in Next Generation Wireless Networks</font></font> The technical program also includes a panel session. The panel, organized by<font color="#000000"> D. Raychaudhuri (WINLAB/Rutgers University)</font>, discusses <font color="#000000"> the future technologies for wireless multimedia</font> networking: "<font color="#000000">Which Wireless Network Technology will Prevail for Scalable<x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab>Mobile Multimedia Services: Cellular (3G/4G) vs. WLAN? Both? Neither?</font>". The workshop program is available at<u><font color="#000000"> <A HREF="http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002">http://www.ing.unipi.it/wowmom2002</A></font></u> Workshop registration: The deadline for early registration is August 22,2002. Best Regards, Marco ContiWoWMoM 2002, TPC co-chair</html> --------------525896B7C438F10D472D859E-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 04:29:12 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA18409 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7M8QdW11355; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:26:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7M8BtW11016 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:11:55 -0400 Received: from elanus.its.uu.se (Elanus.its.UU.SE [130.238.4.143]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA18076 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from elanus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 93AE54951 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:08:15 +0200 (DFT) Received: from elanus.its.uu.se(127.0.0.1) by elanus.its.uu.se via virus-scan id s21170; Thu, 22 Aug 02 10:07:57 +0200 Received: from genesis (unknown [172.22.29.83]) by elanus.its.uu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786C54804 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:07:56 +0200 (DFT) Received: from cray (helo=localhost) by genesis with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17hn2t-0000Kg-00 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:10:23 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:10:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Lindstrom <stli3993@csd.uu.se> X-X-Sender: cray@fortress.se To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208220919590.631-100000@fortress.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id g7M8BuW11017 Subject: [manet] DSR implementations? Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi! Are there any real-world implementations of DSR out there? That are up-to-date with a recent draft revision? I'm developing a DSR implementation that runs under Linux and it would be great if I could test it against another implementations. Thanks in advance, Stefan -- Stefan Lindstr�m email: stli3993@csd.uu.se icq: 161160547 homepage: http://www.csd.uu.se/~stli3993/ _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 04:36:08 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA18517 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:36:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7M8bD812214 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:37:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7M8bDW12211 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:37:13 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA18509 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7M8QdW11355; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:26:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7M8BtW11016 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:11:55 -0400 Received: from elanus.its.uu.se (Elanus.its.UU.SE [130.238.4.143]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA18076 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from elanus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 93AE54951 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:08:15 +0200 (DFT) Received: from elanus.its.uu.se(127.0.0.1) by elanus.its.uu.se via virus-scan id s21170; Thu, 22 Aug 02 10:07:57 +0200 Received: from genesis (unknown [172.22.29.83]) by elanus.its.uu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786C54804 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:07:56 +0200 (DFT) Received: from cray (helo=localhost) by genesis with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17hn2t-0000Kg-00 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:10:23 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:10:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Lindstrom <stli3993@csd.uu.se> X-X-Sender: cray@fortress.se To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208220919590.631-100000@fortress.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id g7M8BuW11017 Subject: [manet] DSR implementations? Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi! Are there any real-world implementations of DSR out there? That are up-to-date with a recent draft revision? I'm developing a DSR implementation that runs under Linux and it would be great if I could test it against another implementations. Thanks in advance, Stefan -- Stefan Lindstr�m email: stli3993@csd.uu.se icq: 161160547 homepage: http://www.csd.uu.se/~stli3993/ _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 10:00:37 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26074 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:00:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MDxZo26251; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:59:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MDvWo26176 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:57:32 -0400 Received: from david.siemens.de (david.siemens.de [192.35.17.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25940 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:56:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.siemens.de (mail1.siemens.de [139.23.33.14]) by david.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MDvSn27738 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:28 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mail-y.mchp.siemens.de (mail-y.mchp.siemens.de [139.23.203.56]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MDvSF23501 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:28 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mchp.siemens.de (aspen [139.23.201.155]) by mail-y.mchp.siemens.de with ESMTP id g7MDvRcH029719 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3D64EEA4.C03FCB3D@mchp.siemens.de> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:01:08 +0200 From: Riadh Marrakchi <riadh.marrakchi.external@mchp.siemens.de> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: manet@ietf.org References: <3D5A8FBE@epostleser.online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] AODV Implementation version Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello everybody, i found two versions (implementations) of AODV under ns-2: the first aodv version is included in NS-2.1b9 i downloaded the second version from http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mmarina/aodv/ (from Mahesh Marina) both packages are implementing the aodv-v6 but i don't know if they are similar or if there is any differences!! does anyone have an idea? Thanks in advance Riadh _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 10:06:29 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26324 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7ME7Qb27083 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:07:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7ME7Po27080 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:07:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26294 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MDxZo26251; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:59:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MDvWo26176 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:57:32 -0400 Received: from david.siemens.de (david.siemens.de [192.35.17.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25940 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:56:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.siemens.de (mail1.siemens.de [139.23.33.14]) by david.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MDvSn27738 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:28 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mail-y.mchp.siemens.de (mail-y.mchp.siemens.de [139.23.203.56]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MDvSF23501 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:28 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mchp.siemens.de (aspen [139.23.201.155]) by mail-y.mchp.siemens.de with ESMTP id g7MDvRcH029719 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3D64EEA4.C03FCB3D@mchp.siemens.de> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:01:08 +0200 From: Riadh Marrakchi <riadh.marrakchi.external@mchp.siemens.de> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: manet@ietf.org References: <3D5A8FBE@epostleser.online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] AODV Implementation version Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello everybody, i found two versions (implementations) of AODV under ns-2: the first aodv version is included in NS-2.1b9 i downloaded the second version from http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mmarina/aodv/ (from Mahesh Marina) both packages are implementing the aodv-v6 but i don't know if they are similar or if there is any differences!! does anyone have an idea? Thanks in advance Riadh _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 10:12:27 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26580 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:12:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MEBSo27319; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:11:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MEAeo27172 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:10:40 -0400 Received: from mailf.telia.com (mailf.telia.com [194.22.194.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26398 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:09:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d1o847.telia.com (d1o847.telia.com [213.65.152.241]) by mailf.telia.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7MEAZ4g002032; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:10:36 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-Recipient: manet@ietf.org Received: from [192.168.0.3] (h70n2fls34o847.telia.com [213.67.19.70]) by d1o847.telia.com (8.10.2/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g7MEAZT06550; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:10:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [manet] AODV Implementation version From: Erik =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nordstr=F6m?= <erik.nordstrom@it.uu.se> To: Riadh Marrakchi <riadh.marrakchi.external@mchp.siemens.de> Cc: MANET LIST <manet@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <3D64EEA4.C03FCB3D@mchp.siemens.de> References: <3D5A8FBE@epostleser.online.no> <3D64EEA4.C03FCB3D@mchp.siemens.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Message-Id: <1030025164.3204.6.camel@Replictor.hn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: 22 Aug 2002 16:06:04 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I believe the two implementations you mentioned are the same, but possibly at different versions. Might be wrong though... AODV-UU, a real-world implementaion of AODV that also runs in ns-2 is available at http://www.docs.uu.se/~henrikl/aodv/. It is implemented according to AODV draft 10. /Erik Nordstr�m On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 16:01, Riadh Marrakchi wrote: > Hello everybody, > i found two versions (implementations) of AODV under ns-2: > the first aodv version is included in NS-2.1b9 > i downloaded the second version from > http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mmarina/aodv/ (from Mahesh Marina) > both packages are implementing the aodv-v6 but i don't know if they are > similar or if there is any differences!! > does anyone have an idea? > Thanks in advance > > Riadh > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet -- Erik Nordstr�m <erik.nordstrom@it.uu.se> _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 10:15:57 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26677 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MEGsl27488 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:16:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MEGso27485 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:16:54 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26665 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:15:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MEBSo27319; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:11:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MEAeo27172 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:10:40 -0400 Received: from mailf.telia.com (mailf.telia.com [194.22.194.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26398 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:09:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d1o847.telia.com (d1o847.telia.com [213.65.152.241]) by mailf.telia.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7MEAZ4g002032; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:10:36 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-Recipient: manet@ietf.org Received: from [192.168.0.3] (h70n2fls34o847.telia.com [213.67.19.70]) by d1o847.telia.com (8.10.2/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g7MEAZT06550; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:10:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [manet] AODV Implementation version From: Erik =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nordstr=F6m?= <erik.nordstrom@it.uu.se> To: Riadh Marrakchi <riadh.marrakchi.external@mchp.siemens.de> Cc: MANET LIST <manet@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <3D64EEA4.C03FCB3D@mchp.siemens.de> References: <3D5A8FBE@epostleser.online.no> <3D64EEA4.C03FCB3D@mchp.siemens.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Message-Id: <1030025164.3204.6.camel@Replictor.hn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: 22 Aug 2002 16:06:04 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I believe the two implementations you mentioned are the same, but possibly at different versions. Might be wrong though... AODV-UU, a real-world implementaion of AODV that also runs in ns-2 is available at http://www.docs.uu.se/~henrikl/aodv/. It is implemented according to AODV draft 10. /Erik Nordstr�m On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 16:01, Riadh Marrakchi wrote: > Hello everybody, > i found two versions (implementations) of AODV under ns-2: > the first aodv version is included in NS-2.1b9 > i downloaded the second version from > http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mmarina/aodv/ (from Mahesh Marina) > both packages are implementing the aodv-v6 but i don't know if they are > similar or if there is any differences!! > does anyone have an idea? > Thanks in advance > > Riadh > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet -- Erik Nordstr�m <erik.nordstrom@it.uu.se> _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 10:31:24 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27091 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:31:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MEWLJ28605 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:32:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MEWLo28602 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:32:21 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27073 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MEQFo27855; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:26:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MEOAo27776 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:24:10 -0400 Received: from thoth.sbs.de (thoth.sbs.de [192.35.17.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26877 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.siemens.de (mail1.siemens.de [139.23.33.14]) by thoth.sbs.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MENwn10376; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:23:58 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mail-y.mchp.siemens.de (mail-y.mchp.siemens.de [139.23.203.56]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MENwF16951; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:23:58 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mchp.siemens.de (aspen [139.23.201.155]) by mail-y.mchp.siemens.de with ESMTP id g7MENvcH000062; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:23:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3D64F4DB.2ADC6C12@mchp.siemens.de> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:27:39 +0200 From: Riadh Marrakchi <riadh.marrakchi.external@mchp.siemens.de> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik =?iso-8859-1?Q?Nordstr=F6m?= <erik.nordstrom@it.uu.se>, manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] AODV Implementation version References: <3D5A8FBE@epostleser.online.no> <3D64EEA4.C03FCB3D@mchp.siemens.de> <1030025164.3204.6.camel@Replictor.hn.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------3D229A1E46AF5E3290C4F50D" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> --------------3D229A1E46AF5E3290C4F50D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Erik, thank you for this information! can you tell me where to get the AODV draft 10 because the link in the mensioned page is broken. Thanks Riadh Erik Nordstr�m wrote: > I believe the two implementations you mentioned are the same, but > possibly at different versions. Might be wrong though... > > AODV-UU, a real-world implementaion of AODV that also runs in ns-2 is > available at http://www.docs.uu.se/~henrikl/aodv/. It is implemented > according to AODV draft 10. > > /Erik Nordstr�m > > On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 16:01, Riadh Marrakchi wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > i found two versions (implementations) of AODV under ns-2: > > the first aodv version is included in NS-2.1b9 > > i downloaded the second version from > > http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mmarina/aodv/ (from Mahesh Marina) > > both packages are implementing the aodv-v6 but i don't know if they are > > similar or if there is any differences!! > > does anyone have an idea? > > Thanks in advance > > > > Riadh > > > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > -- > Erik Nordstr�m <erik.nordstrom@it.uu.se> > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Riadh Marrakchi + + Siemens Corporate Technology + + Tel: +49 89 12012143 + + Handy: +49 179 4836794 + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --------------3D229A1E46AF5E3290C4F50D Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Hi Erik, <br>thank you for this information! can you tell me where to get the AODV draft 10 because the link in the mensioned page is broken. <br>Thanks <br>Riadh <p>Erik Nordström wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>I believe the two implementations you mentioned are the same, but <br>possibly at different versions. Might be wrong though... <p>AODV-UU, a real-world implementaion of AODV that also runs in ns-2 is <br>available at <a href="http://www.docs.uu.se/~henrikl/aodv/">http://www.docs.uu.se/~henrikl/aodv/</a>. It is implemented <br>according to AODV draft 10. <p>/Erik Nordström <p>On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 16:01, Riadh Marrakchi wrote: <br>> Hello everybody, <br>> i found two versions (implementations) of AODV under ns-2: <br>> the first aodv version is included in NS-2.1b9 <br>> i downloaded the second version from <br>> <a href="http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mmarina/aodv/">http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mmarina/aodv/</a> (from Mahesh Marina) <br>> both packages are implementing the aodv-v6 but i don't know if they are <br>> similar or if there is any differences!! <br>> does anyone have an idea? <br>> Thanks in advance <br>> <br>> Riadh <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________ <br>> manet mailing list <br>> manet@ietf.org <br>> <a href="https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet">https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet</a> <br>-- <br>Erik Nordström <erik.nordstrom@it.uu.se> <p>_______________________________________________ <br>manet mailing list <br>manet@ietf.org <br><a href="https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet">https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet</a></blockquote> <pre>-- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Riadh Marrakchi + + Siemens Corporate Technology + + Tel: +49 89 12012143 + + Handy: +49 179 4836794 + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</pre> </html> --------------3D229A1E46AF5E3290C4F50D-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 10:32:05 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27138 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MEQFo27855; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:26:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MEOAo27776 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:24:10 -0400 Received: from thoth.sbs.de (thoth.sbs.de [192.35.17.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26877 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.siemens.de (mail1.siemens.de [139.23.33.14]) by thoth.sbs.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MENwn10376; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:23:58 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mail-y.mchp.siemens.de (mail-y.mchp.siemens.de [139.23.203.56]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MENwF16951; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:23:58 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mchp.siemens.de (aspen [139.23.201.155]) by mail-y.mchp.siemens.de with ESMTP id g7MENvcH000062; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:23:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3D64F4DB.2ADC6C12@mchp.siemens.de> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:27:39 +0200 From: Riadh Marrakchi <riadh.marrakchi.external@mchp.siemens.de> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik =?iso-8859-1?Q?Nordstr=F6m?= <erik.nordstrom@it.uu.se>, manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] AODV Implementation version References: <3D5A8FBE@epostleser.online.no> <3D64EEA4.C03FCB3D@mchp.siemens.de> <1030025164.3204.6.camel@Replictor.hn.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------3D229A1E46AF5E3290C4F50D" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> --------------3D229A1E46AF5E3290C4F50D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Erik, thank you for this information! can you tell me where to get the AODV draft 10 because the link in the mensioned page is broken. Thanks Riadh Erik Nordstr�m wrote: > I believe the two implementations you mentioned are the same, but > possibly at different versions. Might be wrong though... > > AODV-UU, a real-world implementaion of AODV that also runs in ns-2 is > available at http://www.docs.uu.se/~henrikl/aodv/. It is implemented > according to AODV draft 10. > > /Erik Nordstr�m > > On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 16:01, Riadh Marrakchi wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > i found two versions (implementations) of AODV under ns-2: > > the first aodv version is included in NS-2.1b9 > > i downloaded the second version from > > http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mmarina/aodv/ (from Mahesh Marina) > > both packages are implementing the aodv-v6 but i don't know if they are > > similar or if there is any differences!! > > does anyone have an idea? > > Thanks in advance > > > > Riadh > > > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > -- > Erik Nordstr�m <erik.nordstrom@it.uu.se> > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Riadh Marrakchi + + Siemens Corporate Technology + + Tel: +49 89 12012143 + + Handy: +49 179 4836794 + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --------------3D229A1E46AF5E3290C4F50D Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Hi Erik, <br>thank you for this information! can you tell me where to get the AODV draft 10 because the link in the mensioned page is broken. <br>Thanks <br>Riadh <p>Erik Nordström wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>I believe the two implementations you mentioned are the same, but <br>possibly at different versions. Might be wrong though... <p>AODV-UU, a real-world implementaion of AODV that also runs in ns-2 is <br>available at <a href="http://www.docs.uu.se/~henrikl/aodv/">http://www.docs.uu.se/~henrikl/aodv/</a>. It is implemented <br>according to AODV draft 10. <p>/Erik Nordström <p>On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 16:01, Riadh Marrakchi wrote: <br>> Hello everybody, <br>> i found two versions (implementations) of AODV under ns-2: <br>> the first aodv version is included in NS-2.1b9 <br>> i downloaded the second version from <br>> <a href="http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mmarina/aodv/">http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mmarina/aodv/</a> (from Mahesh Marina) <br>> both packages are implementing the aodv-v6 but i don't know if they are <br>> similar or if there is any differences!! <br>> does anyone have an idea? <br>> Thanks in advance <br>> <br>> Riadh <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________ <br>> manet mailing list <br>> manet@ietf.org <br>> <a href="https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet">https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet</a> <br>-- <br>Erik Nordström <erik.nordstrom@it.uu.se> <p>_______________________________________________ <br>manet mailing list <br>manet@ietf.org <br><a href="https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet">https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet</a></blockquote> <pre>-- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Riadh Marrakchi + + Siemens Corporate Technology + + Tel: +49 89 12012143 + + Handy: +49 179 4836794 + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</pre> </html> --------------3D229A1E46AF5E3290C4F50D-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 11:49:09 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29975 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MFYSo31560; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:34:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MFWGo31523 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:32:16 -0400 Received: from uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.165]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29100 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kenshin (kenshin.ecew2k.ncsu.edu [152.1.108.26]) by uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/N.20020819.01) with SMTP id g7MFWC929085 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:32:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004601c249f1$16947810$1a6c0198@ecew2k.ncsu.edu> Reply-To: "Sudarshan N Raghavan" <snraghav@ieee.org> From: "Sudarshan N Raghavan" <snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu> To: <manet@ietf.org> References: <3D5A8FBE@epostleser.online.no> <3D64EEA4.C03FCB3D@mchp.siemens.de> <1030025164.3204.6.camel@Replictor.hn.org> <3D64F4DB.2ADC6C12@mchp.siemens.de> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:32:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0043_01C249CF.8F62A5E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [manet] On demand protocols Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C249CF.8F62A5E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two phases for = route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This seems analogous = to a connection oriented framework. The route request can be treated as = a Route Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup = Acknowledge. If we are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP = framework and an on-demand protocol, are we trying to fit a connection = oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework ?? Regards, Sudarshan N Raghavan Graduate Student, Computer Science NC State University=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C249CF.8F62A5E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV>Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two phases = for=20 route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This seems analogous = to a=20 connection oriented framework. The route request can be treated as a = Route Setup=20 message and the route reply is similar to a Setup Acknowledge. If we are = implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and an on-demand = protocol,=20 are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a = connectionless=20 framework ??</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Regards,</DIV> <DIV>Sudarshan N Raghavan<BR>Graduate Student, Computer Science<BR>NC = State=20 University </DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C249CF.8F62A5E0-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 11:52:06 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00161 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MFr4332528 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:53:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MFr4o32525 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:53:04 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00109 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MFYSo31560; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:34:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MFWGo31523 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:32:16 -0400 Received: from uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.165]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29100 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kenshin (kenshin.ecew2k.ncsu.edu [152.1.108.26]) by uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/N.20020819.01) with SMTP id g7MFWC929085 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:32:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004601c249f1$16947810$1a6c0198@ecew2k.ncsu.edu> Reply-To: "Sudarshan N Raghavan" <snraghav@ieee.org> From: "Sudarshan N Raghavan" <snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu> To: <manet@ietf.org> References: <3D5A8FBE@epostleser.online.no> <3D64EEA4.C03FCB3D@mchp.siemens.de> <1030025164.3204.6.camel@Replictor.hn.org> <3D64F4DB.2ADC6C12@mchp.siemens.de> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:32:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0043_01C249CF.8F62A5E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [manet] On demand protocols Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C249CF.8F62A5E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two phases for = route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This seems analogous = to a connection oriented framework. The route request can be treated as = a Route Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup = Acknowledge. If we are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP = framework and an on-demand protocol, are we trying to fit a connection = oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework ?? Regards, Sudarshan N Raghavan Graduate Student, Computer Science NC State University=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C249CF.8F62A5E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV>Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two phases = for=20 route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This seems analogous = to a=20 connection oriented framework. The route request can be treated as a = Route Setup=20 message and the route reply is similar to a Setup Acknowledge. If we are = implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and an on-demand = protocol,=20 are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a = connectionless=20 framework ??</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Regards,</DIV> <DIV>Sudarshan N Raghavan<BR>Graduate Student, Computer Science<BR>NC = State=20 University </DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C249CF.8F62A5E0-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 12:30:49 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01768 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MGVlf02822 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:31:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MGVlo02819 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:31:47 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01752 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:30:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MGTfo02134; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:29:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MGSAo02067 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:28:10 -0400 Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01583 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10018; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25115; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <RHFQ6439>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:27:00 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC557632F8@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Naidu, Venkata" <Venkata.Naidu@Marconi.com> To: "'Sudarshan N Raghavan'" <snraghav@ieee.org>, manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:26:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Raghavan, IMHO, you are mixing different things here. Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. If you want a connection oriented network, then you may have to signal some information along that path to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to destination (the state information is not necessarily maintained at every hop to the destination) In other words, you can't just compare message types (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- oriented L3 frameworks. Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are implementing a connection using the IP framework and a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework ?" The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection oriented. -- Venkata. -----Original Message----- From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] On demand protocols Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two phases for route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This seems analogous to a connection oriented framework. The route request can be treated as a Route Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup Acknowledge. If we are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and an on-demand protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework ?? Regards, Sudarshan N Raghavan Graduate Student, Computer Science NC State University _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 12:31:21 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01824 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:31:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MGTfo02134; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:29:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MGSAo02067 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:28:10 -0400 Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01583 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10018; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25115; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <RHFQ6439>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:27:00 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC557632F8@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Naidu, Venkata" <Venkata.Naidu@Marconi.com> To: "'Sudarshan N Raghavan'" <snraghav@ieee.org>, manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:26:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Raghavan, IMHO, you are mixing different things here. Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. If you want a connection oriented network, then you may have to signal some information along that path to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to destination (the state information is not necessarily maintained at every hop to the destination) In other words, you can't just compare message types (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- oriented L3 frameworks. Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are implementing a connection using the IP framework and a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework ?" The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection oriented. -- Venkata. -----Original Message----- From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] On demand protocols Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two phases for route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This seems analogous to a connection oriented framework. The route request can be treated as a Route Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup Acknowledge. If we are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and an on-demand protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework ?? Regards, Sudarshan N Raghavan Graduate Student, Computer Science NC State University _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 13:15:01 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03346 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:15:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MHFxs04850 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:15:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MHFxo04847 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:15:59 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03324 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MHE7o04747; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:14:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MHCao04656 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:12:36 -0400 Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com [12.13.247.21]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03075 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from slb-av-02.boeing.com ([129.172.13.7]) by stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id MAA29254; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:12:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from blv-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-02.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/MBS-AV-02) with ESMTP id KAA01572; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com (xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com [128.225.22.4]) by blv-hub-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id g7MHCS526416; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <37GW0JKT>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:12:27 -0400 Message-ID: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AB7EF@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> To: "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>, manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:12:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Venkata, I agree about maintaining state as an attribute of connection-oriented protocols. I also agree that you can be connection-oriented at the Transport Layer, for example, but connectionless at the Network Layer. Take a situation where each host of a MANET must determine the complete path before forwarding packets, as (I believe) Raghavan postulates. To me, the fact that each host must keep an explicit list of hops to reach a destination means that the host is maintaining Network Layer state information. So I believe you have created a connection-oriented Network Layer, in effect. If one of the hops disappears, you need to establish a new path, just as you would in an ATM network, if a switch along your ATM SVC fails. No? Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:27 PM > To: 'Sudarshan N Raghavan'; manet@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > Raghavan, > > IMHO, you are mixing different things here. > Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable > to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control > plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. > > If you want a connection oriented network, then you > may have to signal some information along that path > to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to > destination (the state information is not necessarily > maintained at every hop to the destination) > > In other words, you can't just compare message types > (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege > that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. > > Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, > But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- > oriented L3 frameworks. > > Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are > implementing a connection using the IP framework and > a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit > a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless > framework ?" > > The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs > hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection > oriented. > > -- > Venkata. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM > To: manet@ietf.org > Subject: [manet] On demand protocols > > > Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two > phases for > route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This > seems analogous to > a connection oriented framework. The route request can be > treated as a Route > Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup > Acknowledge. If we > are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and > an on-demand > protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a > connectionless framework ?? > > Regards, > Sudarshan N Raghavan > Graduate Student, Computer Science > NC State University > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 13:15:30 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03395 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:15:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MHE7o04747; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:14:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MHCao04656 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:12:36 -0400 Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com [12.13.247.21]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03075 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from slb-av-02.boeing.com ([129.172.13.7]) by stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id MAA29254; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:12:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from blv-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-02.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/MBS-AV-02) with ESMTP id KAA01572; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com (xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com [128.225.22.4]) by blv-hub-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id g7MHCS526416; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <37GW0JKT>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:12:27 -0400 Message-ID: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AB7EF@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> To: "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>, manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:12:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Venkata, I agree about maintaining state as an attribute of connection-oriented protocols. I also agree that you can be connection-oriented at the Transport Layer, for example, but connectionless at the Network Layer. Take a situation where each host of a MANET must determine the complete path before forwarding packets, as (I believe) Raghavan postulates. To me, the fact that each host must keep an explicit list of hops to reach a destination means that the host is maintaining Network Layer state information. So I believe you have created a connection-oriented Network Layer, in effect. If one of the hops disappears, you need to establish a new path, just as you would in an ATM network, if a switch along your ATM SVC fails. No? Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:27 PM > To: 'Sudarshan N Raghavan'; manet@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > Raghavan, > > IMHO, you are mixing different things here. > Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable > to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control > plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. > > If you want a connection oriented network, then you > may have to signal some information along that path > to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to > destination (the state information is not necessarily > maintained at every hop to the destination) > > In other words, you can't just compare message types > (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege > that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. > > Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, > But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- > oriented L3 frameworks. > > Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are > implementing a connection using the IP framework and > a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit > a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless > framework ?" > > The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs > hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection > oriented. > > -- > Venkata. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM > To: manet@ietf.org > Subject: [manet] On demand protocols > > > Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two > phases for > route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This > seems analogous to > a connection oriented framework. The route request can be > treated as a Route > Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup > Acknowledge. If we > are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and > an on-demand > protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a > connectionless framework ?? > > Regards, > Sudarshan N Raghavan > Graduate Student, Computer Science > NC State University > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 14:58:48 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06693 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MIsho10895; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:54:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MIqto10805 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:52:55 -0400 Received: from uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.165]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06365 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kenshin (kenshin.ecew2k.ncsu.edu [152.1.108.26]) by uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/N.20020819.01) with SMTP id g7MIqiW06132; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008301c24a0d$1a4fe8b0$1a6c0198@ecew2k.ncsu.edu> Reply-To: "Sudarshan N Raghavan" <snraghav@ieee.org> From: "Sudarshan N Raghavan" <snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu> To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>, <manet@ietf.org> References: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AB7EF@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:52:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thats right ... When we bring TCP into the picture, we are comparing two different layers. TCP indeed tries to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework to provide reliability to an unrelaible network layer. When we consider MANETs we seem to be bringing down this connection oriented mechanism from the transport layer to the network layer. We can postulate that we need to do this because the nodes are mobile and wireless links are inherently unreliable. However, the essence of the fact that IP is a connectionless protocol is lost. IP just becomes an addressing scheme for identifying the nodes. Regards, Sudarshan N Raghavan Graduate Student, Computer Science NC State University ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> To: "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>; <manet@ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:12 PM Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > Venkata, > > I agree about maintaining state as an attribute of connection-oriented protocols. I also agree that you can be connection-oriented at the Transport Layer, for example, but connectionless at the Network Layer. > > Take a situation where each host of a MANET must determine the complete path before forwarding packets, as (I believe) Raghavan postulates. To me, the fact that each host must keep an explicit list of hops to reach a destination means that the host is maintaining Network Layer state information. So I believe you have created a connection-oriented Network Layer, in effect. If one of the hops disappears, you need to establish a new path, just as you would in an ATM network, if a switch along your ATM SVC fails. No? > > Bert > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:27 PM > > To: 'Sudarshan N Raghavan'; manet@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > Raghavan, > > > > IMHO, you are mixing different things here. > > Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable > > to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control > > plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. > > > > If you want a connection oriented network, then you > > may have to signal some information along that path > > to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to > > destination (the state information is not necessarily > > maintained at every hop to the destination) > > > > In other words, you can't just compare message types > > (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege > > that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. > > > > Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, > > But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- > > oriented L3 frameworks. > > > > Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are > > implementing a connection using the IP framework and > > a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit > > a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless > > framework ?" > > > > The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs > > hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection > > oriented. > > > > -- > > Venkata. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM > > To: manet@ietf.org > > Subject: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two > > phases for > > route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This > > seems analogous to > > a connection oriented framework. The route request can be > > treated as a Route > > Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup > > Acknowledge. If we > > are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and > > an on-demand > > protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a > > connectionless framework ?? > > > > Regards, > > Sudarshan N Raghavan > > Graduate Student, Computer Science > > NC State University > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:12:53 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07124 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:12:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MJDqN12079 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:13:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJDqo12074 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:13:52 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07114 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MIsho10895; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:54:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MIqto10805 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:52:55 -0400 Received: from uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.165]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06365 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kenshin (kenshin.ecew2k.ncsu.edu [152.1.108.26]) by uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/N.20020819.01) with SMTP id g7MIqiW06132; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008301c24a0d$1a4fe8b0$1a6c0198@ecew2k.ncsu.edu> Reply-To: "Sudarshan N Raghavan" <snraghav@ieee.org> From: "Sudarshan N Raghavan" <snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu> To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>, <manet@ietf.org> References: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AB7EF@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:52:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thats right ... When we bring TCP into the picture, we are comparing two different layers. TCP indeed tries to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework to provide reliability to an unrelaible network layer. When we consider MANETs we seem to be bringing down this connection oriented mechanism from the transport layer to the network layer. We can postulate that we need to do this because the nodes are mobile and wireless links are inherently unreliable. However, the essence of the fact that IP is a connectionless protocol is lost. IP just becomes an addressing scheme for identifying the nodes. Regards, Sudarshan N Raghavan Graduate Student, Computer Science NC State University ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> To: "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>; <manet@ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:12 PM Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > Venkata, > > I agree about maintaining state as an attribute of connection-oriented protocols. I also agree that you can be connection-oriented at the Transport Layer, for example, but connectionless at the Network Layer. > > Take a situation where each host of a MANET must determine the complete path before forwarding packets, as (I believe) Raghavan postulates. To me, the fact that each host must keep an explicit list of hops to reach a destination means that the host is maintaining Network Layer state information. So I believe you have created a connection-oriented Network Layer, in effect. If one of the hops disappears, you need to establish a new path, just as you would in an ATM network, if a switch along your ATM SVC fails. No? > > Bert > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:27 PM > > To: 'Sudarshan N Raghavan'; manet@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > Raghavan, > > > > IMHO, you are mixing different things here. > > Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable > > to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control > > plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. > > > > If you want a connection oriented network, then you > > may have to signal some information along that path > > to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to > > destination (the state information is not necessarily > > maintained at every hop to the destination) > > > > In other words, you can't just compare message types > > (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege > > that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. > > > > Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, > > But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- > > oriented L3 frameworks. > > > > Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are > > implementing a connection using the IP framework and > > a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit > > a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless > > framework ?" > > > > The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs > > hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection > > oriented. > > > > -- > > Venkata. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM > > To: manet@ietf.org > > Subject: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two > > phases for > > route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This > > seems analogous to > > a connection oriented framework. The route request can be > > treated as a Route > > Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup > > Acknowledge. If we > > are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and > > an on-demand > > protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a > > connectionless framework ?? > > > > Regards, > > Sudarshan N Raghavan > > Graduate Student, Computer Science > > NC State University > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:22:18 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07345 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MJNHA12451 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:23:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJNHo12448 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:23:17 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07327 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJIJo12274; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:18:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJH5o12244 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:17:05 -0400 Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [12.13.237.21]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07205 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from stl-av-02.boeing.com ([192.76.190.7]) by slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id MAA21843; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-02.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/MBS-AV-02) with ESMTP id OAA17913; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:16:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com (xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com [128.225.22.4]) by blv-hub-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id g7MJGu504033; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <37GW0LF3>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:16:55 -0400 Message-ID: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AC06C@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> To: "'Sudarshan N Raghavan'" <snraghav@ieee.org>, manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:16:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> In fact, I think, two things are lost in the general case: 1. The fact that the IP Layer is connectionless, and 2. The fact that IP addresses are hierarchical. In the past, others and I have expressed #2 by suggesting that the IP addresses of the MANET hosts are in a flat address space, just like MAC addresses. In the most general case of a MANET. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:53 PM > To: Manfredi, Albert E; 'Naidu, Venkata'; manet@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols > > > Thats right ... When we bring TCP into the picture, we are > comparing two > different layers. TCP indeed tries to fit a connection > oriented mechanism > into a connectionless framework to provide reliability to an > unrelaible > network layer. When we consider MANETs we seem to be bringing > down this > connection oriented mechanism from the transport layer to the > network layer. > We can postulate that we need to do this because the nodes > are mobile and > wireless links are inherently unreliable. However, the > essence of the fact > that IP is a connectionless protocol is lost. IP just becomes > an addressing > scheme for identifying the nodes. > > Regards, > Sudarshan N Raghavan > Graduate Student, Computer Science > NC State University > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> > To: "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>; <manet@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:12 PM > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > Venkata, > > > > I agree about maintaining state as an attribute of > connection-oriented > protocols. I also agree that you can be connection-oriented > at the Transport > Layer, for example, but connectionless at the Network Layer. > > > > Take a situation where each host of a MANET must determine > the complete > path before forwarding packets, as (I believe) Raghavan > postulates. To me, > the fact that each host must keep an explicit list of hops to reach a > destination means that the host is maintaining Network Layer state > information. So I believe you have created a > connection-oriented Network > Layer, in effect. If one of the hops disappears, you need to > establish a new > path, just as you would in an ATM network, if a switch along > your ATM SVC > fails. No? > > > > Bert > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:27 PM > > > To: 'Sudarshan N Raghavan'; manet@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > > > > Raghavan, > > > > > > IMHO, you are mixing different things here. > > > Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable > > > to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control > > > plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. > > > > > > If you want a connection oriented network, then you > > > may have to signal some information along that path > > > to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to > > > destination (the state information is not necessarily > > > maintained at every hop to the destination) > > > > > > In other words, you can't just compare message types > > > (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege > > > that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. > > > > > > Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, > > > But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- > > > oriented L3 frameworks. > > > > > > Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are > > > implementing a connection using the IP framework and > > > a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit > > > a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless > > > framework ?" > > > > > > The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs > > > hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection > > > oriented. > > > > > > -- > > > Venkata. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM > > > To: manet@ietf.org > > > Subject: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > > > > Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two > > > phases for > > > route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This > > > seems analogous to > > > a connection oriented framework. The route request can be > > > treated as a Route > > > Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup > > > Acknowledge. If we > > > are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and > > > an on-demand > > > protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented > mechanism into a > > > connectionless framework ?? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Sudarshan N Raghavan > > > Graduate Student, Computer Science > > > NC State University > > > _______________________________________________ > > > manet mailing list > > > manet@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:22:41 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07367 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:22:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJIJo12274; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:18:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJH5o12244 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:17:05 -0400 Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [12.13.237.21]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07205 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from stl-av-02.boeing.com ([192.76.190.7]) by slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id MAA21843; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-02.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/MBS-AV-02) with ESMTP id OAA17913; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:16:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com (xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com [128.225.22.4]) by blv-hub-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id g7MJGu504033; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <37GW0LF3>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:16:55 -0400 Message-ID: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AC06C@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> To: "'Sudarshan N Raghavan'" <snraghav@ieee.org>, manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:16:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> In fact, I think, two things are lost in the general case: 1. The fact that the IP Layer is connectionless, and 2. The fact that IP addresses are hierarchical. In the past, others and I have expressed #2 by suggesting that the IP addresses of the MANET hosts are in a flat address space, just like MAC addresses. In the most general case of a MANET. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:53 PM > To: Manfredi, Albert E; 'Naidu, Venkata'; manet@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols > > > Thats right ... When we bring TCP into the picture, we are > comparing two > different layers. TCP indeed tries to fit a connection > oriented mechanism > into a connectionless framework to provide reliability to an > unrelaible > network layer. When we consider MANETs we seem to be bringing > down this > connection oriented mechanism from the transport layer to the > network layer. > We can postulate that we need to do this because the nodes > are mobile and > wireless links are inherently unreliable. However, the > essence of the fact > that IP is a connectionless protocol is lost. IP just becomes > an addressing > scheme for identifying the nodes. > > Regards, > Sudarshan N Raghavan > Graduate Student, Computer Science > NC State University > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> > To: "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>; <manet@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:12 PM > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > Venkata, > > > > I agree about maintaining state as an attribute of > connection-oriented > protocols. I also agree that you can be connection-oriented > at the Transport > Layer, for example, but connectionless at the Network Layer. > > > > Take a situation where each host of a MANET must determine > the complete > path before forwarding packets, as (I believe) Raghavan > postulates. To me, > the fact that each host must keep an explicit list of hops to reach a > destination means that the host is maintaining Network Layer state > information. So I believe you have created a > connection-oriented Network > Layer, in effect. If one of the hops disappears, you need to > establish a new > path, just as you would in an ATM network, if a switch along > your ATM SVC > fails. No? > > > > Bert > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:27 PM > > > To: 'Sudarshan N Raghavan'; manet@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > > > > Raghavan, > > > > > > IMHO, you are mixing different things here. > > > Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable > > > to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control > > > plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. > > > > > > If you want a connection oriented network, then you > > > may have to signal some information along that path > > > to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to > > > destination (the state information is not necessarily > > > maintained at every hop to the destination) > > > > > > In other words, you can't just compare message types > > > (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege > > > that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. > > > > > > Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, > > > But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- > > > oriented L3 frameworks. > > > > > > Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are > > > implementing a connection using the IP framework and > > > a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit > > > a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless > > > framework ?" > > > > > > The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs > > > hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection > > > oriented. > > > > > > -- > > > Venkata. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM > > > To: manet@ietf.org > > > Subject: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > > > > Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two > > > phases for > > > route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This > > > seems analogous to > > > a connection oriented framework. The route request can be > > > treated as a Route > > > Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup > > > Acknowledge. If we > > > are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and > > > an on-demand > > > protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented > mechanism into a > > > connectionless framework ?? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Sudarshan N Raghavan > > > Graduate Student, Computer Science > > > NC State University > > > _______________________________________________ > > > manet mailing list > > > manet@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:26:53 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07498 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MJRqC12653 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:27:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJRqo12650 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:27:52 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07485 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJN6o12438; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:23:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJMKo12405 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:22:20 -0400 Received: from amber.crhc.uiuc.edu (amber.crhc.uiuc.edu [130.126.143.254]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07311 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu (chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu [130.126.143.233]) by amber.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26929; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:22:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (mjmille2@localhost) by chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25883; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:22:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:22:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Matt Miller <mjmille2@crhc.uiuc.edu> To: Sudarshan N Raghavan <snraghav@ieee.org> cc: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>, manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols In-Reply-To: <008301c24a0d$1a4fe8b0$1a6c0198@ecew2k.ncsu.edu> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0208221412000.23574-100000@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> In on-demand routing, IP is still connectionless with respect to data packets. By your argument, proactive routing would lose the connectionless nature of IP as well because routes are continually being "setup". On-demand routing just tries to be more efficient by setting up routes as needed instead of continually. -Matt On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Sudarshan N Raghavan wrote: > Thats right ... When we bring TCP into the picture, we are comparing two > different layers. TCP indeed tries to fit a connection oriented mechanism > into a connectionless framework to provide reliability to an unrelaible > network layer. When we consider MANETs we seem to be bringing down this > connection oriented mechanism from the transport layer to the network layer. > We can postulate that we need to do this because the nodes are mobile and > wireless links are inherently unreliable. However, the essence of the fact > that IP is a connectionless protocol is lost. IP just becomes an addressing > scheme for identifying the nodes. > > Regards, > Sudarshan N Raghavan > Graduate Student, Computer Science > NC State University > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> > To: "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>; <manet@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:12 PM > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > Venkata, > > > > I agree about maintaining state as an attribute of connection-oriented > protocols. I also agree that you can be connection-oriented at the Transport > Layer, for example, but connectionless at the Network Layer. > > > > Take a situation where each host of a MANET must determine the complete > path before forwarding packets, as (I believe) Raghavan postulates. To me, > the fact that each host must keep an explicit list of hops to reach a > destination means that the host is maintaining Network Layer state > information. So I believe you have created a connection-oriented Network > Layer, in effect. If one of the hops disappears, you need to establish a new > path, just as you would in an ATM network, if a switch along your ATM SVC > fails. No? > > > > Bert > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:27 PM > > > To: 'Sudarshan N Raghavan'; manet@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > > > > Raghavan, > > > > > > IMHO, you are mixing different things here. > > > Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable > > > to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control > > > plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. > > > > > > If you want a connection oriented network, then you > > > may have to signal some information along that path > > > to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to > > > destination (the state information is not necessarily > > > maintained at every hop to the destination) > > > > > > In other words, you can't just compare message types > > > (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege > > > that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. > > > > > > Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, > > > But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- > > > oriented L3 frameworks. > > > > > > Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are > > > implementing a connection using the IP framework and > > > a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit > > > a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless > > > framework ?" > > > > > > The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs > > > hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection > > > oriented. > > > > > > -- > > > Venkata. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM > > > To: manet@ietf.org > > > Subject: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > > > > Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two > > > phases for > > > route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This > > > seems analogous to > > > a connection oriented framework. The route request can be > > > treated as a Route > > > Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup > > > Acknowledge. If we > > > are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and > > > an on-demand > > > protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a > > > connectionless framework ?? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Sudarshan N Raghavan > > > Graduate Student, Computer Science > > > NC State University > > > _______________________________________________ > > > manet mailing list > > > manet@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:27:16 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07522 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJN6o12438; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:23:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJMKo12405 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:22:20 -0400 Received: from amber.crhc.uiuc.edu (amber.crhc.uiuc.edu [130.126.143.254]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07311 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu (chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu [130.126.143.233]) by amber.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26929; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:22:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (mjmille2@localhost) by chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25883; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:22:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:22:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Matt Miller <mjmille2@crhc.uiuc.edu> To: Sudarshan N Raghavan <snraghav@ieee.org> cc: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>, manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols In-Reply-To: <008301c24a0d$1a4fe8b0$1a6c0198@ecew2k.ncsu.edu> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0208221412000.23574-100000@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> In on-demand routing, IP is still connectionless with respect to data packets. By your argument, proactive routing would lose the connectionless nature of IP as well because routes are continually being "setup". On-demand routing just tries to be more efficient by setting up routes as needed instead of continually. -Matt On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Sudarshan N Raghavan wrote: > Thats right ... When we bring TCP into the picture, we are comparing two > different layers. TCP indeed tries to fit a connection oriented mechanism > into a connectionless framework to provide reliability to an unrelaible > network layer. When we consider MANETs we seem to be bringing down this > connection oriented mechanism from the transport layer to the network layer. > We can postulate that we need to do this because the nodes are mobile and > wireless links are inherently unreliable. However, the essence of the fact > that IP is a connectionless protocol is lost. IP just becomes an addressing > scheme for identifying the nodes. > > Regards, > Sudarshan N Raghavan > Graduate Student, Computer Science > NC State University > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> > To: "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>; <manet@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:12 PM > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > Venkata, > > > > I agree about maintaining state as an attribute of connection-oriented > protocols. I also agree that you can be connection-oriented at the Transport > Layer, for example, but connectionless at the Network Layer. > > > > Take a situation where each host of a MANET must determine the complete > path before forwarding packets, as (I believe) Raghavan postulates. To me, > the fact that each host must keep an explicit list of hops to reach a > destination means that the host is maintaining Network Layer state > information. So I believe you have created a connection-oriented Network > Layer, in effect. If one of the hops disappears, you need to establish a new > path, just as you would in an ATM network, if a switch along your ATM SVC > fails. No? > > > > Bert > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:27 PM > > > To: 'Sudarshan N Raghavan'; manet@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > > > > Raghavan, > > > > > > IMHO, you are mixing different things here. > > > Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable > > > to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control > > > plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. > > > > > > If you want a connection oriented network, then you > > > may have to signal some information along that path > > > to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to > > > destination (the state information is not necessarily > > > maintained at every hop to the destination) > > > > > > In other words, you can't just compare message types > > > (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege > > > that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. > > > > > > Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, > > > But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- > > > oriented L3 frameworks. > > > > > > Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are > > > implementing a connection using the IP framework and > > > a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit > > > a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless > > > framework ?" > > > > > > The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs > > > hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection > > > oriented. > > > > > > -- > > > Venkata. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM > > > To: manet@ietf.org > > > Subject: [manet] On demand protocols > > > > > > > > > Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two > > > phases for > > > route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This > > > seems analogous to > > > a connection oriented framework. The route request can be > > > treated as a Route > > > Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup > > > Acknowledge. If we > > > are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and > > > an on-demand > > > protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a > > > connectionless framework ?? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Sudarshan N Raghavan > > > Graduate Student, Computer Science > > > NC State University > > > _______________________________________________ > > > manet mailing list > > > manet@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:31:22 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07681 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MJWLW13447 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:32:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJWLo13444 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:32:21 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07644 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:30:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJRHo12617; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:27:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJQxo12584 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:27:00 -0400 Received: from trac.wsmr.army.mil (trac.wsmr.army.mil [155.148.36.131]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07457 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:25:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by gw.trac.wsmr.army.mil id <117126>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:26:50 -0600 Message-Id: <02Aug22.132650mdt.117126@gw.trac.wsmr.army.mil> From: "Mullen, John P. (Contractor)" <mullenjp.contractor@trac.wsmr.army.mil> To: manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:26:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C24A11.D97F4010" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C24A11.D97F4010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Sudarshan, The short answer is "yes." More detail. First of all, not all messages are sent via routes. Unacknowledged Data Packets (UDPs) can be used for a number of purposes. There is still the problem of suppressing redundant retransmissions, but there is no need for route requests or replies. However, some messages are intended for just certain destinations. In this case, it is best that only the nodes necessary to move the message to the recipient(s) rebroadcast. The route achieves that purpose. It is a virtual connection imposed on an unstable connectionless (actually, over connected) network. However, this is not a matter of simply trying to shoehorn the IP framework onto the MANET situation. The suppression of redundant node retransmissions is an important goal in the MANET since it reduces the channel utilization. It is also important to remember that the typical problem in MANETs is not a lack of connections, but a surplus. If there are not enough connections, no protocol can produce them. You simply have to either increase transmitter power or introduce more nodes. The protocol earns its pay when the reverse problem exists. That is, there are more nodes than needed and the problem is how to have just the nodes that are needed rebroadcast and the rest shut up. Protocols differ in how they attempt to achieve this and have other tasks, but keeping the extra retransmissions down is one aspect all of the protocols have to deal with. Hope this helps, John Mullen -----Original Message----- From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 9:32 AM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] On demand protocols Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two phases for route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This seems analogous to a connection oriented framework. The route request can be treated as a Route Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup Acknowledge. If we are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and an on-demand protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework ?? Regards, Sudarshan N Raghavan Graduate Student, Computer Science NC State University ------_=_NextPart_001_01C24A11.D97F4010 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hi Sudarshan,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The short answer is "yes."</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>More detail.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>First of all, not all messages are sent via routes. Unacknowledged Data Packets (UDPs) can be used for a number of purposes. There is still the problem of suppressing redundant retransmissions, but there is no need for route requests or replies.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>However, some messages are intended for just certain destinations. In this case, it is best that only the nodes necessary to move the message to the recipient(s) rebroadcast. The route achieves that purpose.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It is a virtual connection imposed on an unstable connectionless (actually, over connected) network. However, this is not a matter of simply trying to shoehorn the IP framework onto the MANET situation. The suppression of redundant node retransmissions is an important goal in the MANET since it reduces the channel utilization. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It is also important to remember that the typical problem in MANETs is not a lack of connections, but a surplus. If there are not enough connections, no protocol can produce them. You simply have to either increase transmitter power or introduce more nodes. The protocol earns its pay when the reverse problem exists. That is, there are more nodes than needed and the problem is how to have just the nodes that are needed rebroadcast and the rest shut up. Protocols differ in how they attempt to achieve this and have other tasks, but keeping the extra retransmissions down is one aspect all of the protocols have to deal with.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hope this helps,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>John Mullen</FONT></SPAN></DIV></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 22, 2002 9:32 AM<BR><B>To:</B> manet@ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [manet] On demand protocols<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV>Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two phases for route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This seems analogous to a connection oriented framework. The route request can be treated as a Route Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup Acknowledge. If we are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and an on-demand protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework ??</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Regards,</DIV> <DIV>Sudarshan N Raghavan<BR>Graduate Student, Computer Science<BR>NC State University </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C24A11.D97F4010-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:32:01 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07732 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJRHo12617; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:27:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJQxo12584 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:27:00 -0400 Received: from trac.wsmr.army.mil (trac.wsmr.army.mil [155.148.36.131]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07457 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:25:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by gw.trac.wsmr.army.mil id <117126>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:26:50 -0600 Message-Id: <02Aug22.132650mdt.117126@gw.trac.wsmr.army.mil> From: "Mullen, John P. (Contractor)" <mullenjp.contractor@trac.wsmr.army.mil> To: manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:26:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C24A11.D97F4010" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C24A11.D97F4010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Sudarshan, The short answer is "yes." More detail. First of all, not all messages are sent via routes. Unacknowledged Data Packets (UDPs) can be used for a number of purposes. There is still the problem of suppressing redundant retransmissions, but there is no need for route requests or replies. However, some messages are intended for just certain destinations. In this case, it is best that only the nodes necessary to move the message to the recipient(s) rebroadcast. The route achieves that purpose. It is a virtual connection imposed on an unstable connectionless (actually, over connected) network. However, this is not a matter of simply trying to shoehorn the IP framework onto the MANET situation. The suppression of redundant node retransmissions is an important goal in the MANET since it reduces the channel utilization. It is also important to remember that the typical problem in MANETs is not a lack of connections, but a surplus. If there are not enough connections, no protocol can produce them. You simply have to either increase transmitter power or introduce more nodes. The protocol earns its pay when the reverse problem exists. That is, there are more nodes than needed and the problem is how to have just the nodes that are needed rebroadcast and the rest shut up. Protocols differ in how they attempt to achieve this and have other tasks, but keeping the extra retransmissions down is one aspect all of the protocols have to deal with. Hope this helps, John Mullen -----Original Message----- From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 9:32 AM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] On demand protocols Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two phases for route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This seems analogous to a connection oriented framework. The route request can be treated as a Route Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup Acknowledge. If we are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and an on-demand protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework ?? Regards, Sudarshan N Raghavan Graduate Student, Computer Science NC State University ------_=_NextPart_001_01C24A11.D97F4010 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hi Sudarshan,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The short answer is "yes."</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>More detail.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>First of all, not all messages are sent via routes. Unacknowledged Data Packets (UDPs) can be used for a number of purposes. There is still the problem of suppressing redundant retransmissions, but there is no need for route requests or replies.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>However, some messages are intended for just certain destinations. In this case, it is best that only the nodes necessary to move the message to the recipient(s) rebroadcast. The route achieves that purpose.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It is a virtual connection imposed on an unstable connectionless (actually, over connected) network. However, this is not a matter of simply trying to shoehorn the IP framework onto the MANET situation. The suppression of redundant node retransmissions is an important goal in the MANET since it reduces the channel utilization. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It is also important to remember that the typical problem in MANETs is not a lack of connections, but a surplus. If there are not enough connections, no protocol can produce them. You simply have to either increase transmitter power or introduce more nodes. The protocol earns its pay when the reverse problem exists. That is, there are more nodes than needed and the problem is how to have just the nodes that are needed rebroadcast and the rest shut up. Protocols differ in how they attempt to achieve this and have other tasks, but keeping the extra retransmissions down is one aspect all of the protocols have to deal with.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hope this helps,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=734115815-22082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>John Mullen</FONT></SPAN></DIV></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 22, 2002 9:32 AM<BR><B>To:</B> manet@ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [manet] On demand protocols<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV>Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two phases for route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This seems analogous to a connection oriented framework. The route request can be treated as a Route Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup Acknowledge. If we are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and an on-demand protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless framework ??</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Regards,</DIV> <DIV>Sudarshan N Raghavan<BR>Graduate Student, Computer Science<BR>NC State University </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C24A11.D97F4010-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:35:03 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07829 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:35:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJYHo13542; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:34:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJXFo13507 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:33:15 -0400 Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [192.161.36.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07725 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from stl-av-02.boeing.com ([192.76.190.7]) by blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id MAA21265; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-02.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/MBS-AV-02) with ESMTP id OAA03327; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:32:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com (xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com [128.225.22.4]) by blv-hub-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id g7MJX5500230; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <37GW0LMM>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:33:05 -0400 Message-ID: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AB7F0@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> To: "'Matt Miller'" <mjmille2@crhc.uiuc.edu> Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:33:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> I don't know about on-demand routing, but it does seem to me that if each hop must know what its reachable neighbors are at any time, and each source must know specifically what path each packet must take, there is a lot of Layer 3 state being maintained. I believe you can make the case that MPLS or RSVP also maintain state at the Network Layer, or a shim just below it. I think certainly RSVP can be considered connection-oriented at the Network Layer? The only significant difference I see here is that no resources are being reserved along the path in a MANET. Then again, ATM doesn't reserve any resources for UBR VCs either, yet those are considered connection oriented. Perhaps this is a subject teetering on the edge of the religious slippery slope. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Miller [mailto:mjmille2@crhc.uiuc.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 3:22 PM > To: Sudarshan N Raghavan > Cc: Manfredi, Albert E; 'Naidu, Venkata'; manet@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols > > > In on-demand routing, IP is still connectionless with respect to data > packets. By your argument, proactive routing would lose the > connectionless nature of IP as well because routes are > continually being > "setup". On-demand routing just tries to be more efficient > by setting up > routes as needed instead of continually. > > -Matt _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:38:02 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07985 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:38:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MJd2d13730 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:39:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJd1o13727 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:39:01 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07964 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJYHo13542; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:34:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJXFo13507 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:33:15 -0400 Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [192.161.36.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07725 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from stl-av-02.boeing.com ([192.76.190.7]) by blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id MAA21265; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-02.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/MBS-AV-02) with ESMTP id OAA03327; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:32:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com (xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com [128.225.22.4]) by blv-hub-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id g7MJX5500230; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <37GW0LMM>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:33:05 -0400 Message-ID: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AB7F0@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> To: "'Matt Miller'" <mjmille2@crhc.uiuc.edu> Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:33:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> I don't know about on-demand routing, but it does seem to me that if each hop must know what its reachable neighbors are at any time, and each source must know specifically what path each packet must take, there is a lot of Layer 3 state being maintained. I believe you can make the case that MPLS or RSVP also maintain state at the Network Layer, or a shim just below it. I think certainly RSVP can be considered connection-oriented at the Network Layer? The only significant difference I see here is that no resources are being reserved along the path in a MANET. Then again, ATM doesn't reserve any resources for UBR VCs either, yet those are considered connection oriented. Perhaps this is a subject teetering on the edge of the religious slippery slope. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Miller [mailto:mjmille2@crhc.uiuc.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 3:22 PM > To: Sudarshan N Raghavan > Cc: Manfredi, Albert E; 'Naidu, Venkata'; manet@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols > > > In on-demand routing, IP is still connectionless with respect to data > packets. By your argument, proactive routing would lose the > connectionless nature of IP as well because routes are > continually being > "setup". On-demand routing just tries to be more efficient > by setting up > routes as needed instead of continually. > > -Matt _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:56:17 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08498 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:56:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MJvGx14819 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJvGo14816 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08479 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJt7o14664; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:55:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJr4o14582 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:53:04 -0400 Received: from meshpdc.meshnetworks.com ([205.245.27.196]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08386 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from neumillersimul (neumiller-simul.meshnetworks.com [172.16.1.171]) by meshpdc.meshnetworks.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id RJXRBRXL; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:52:56 -0400 Message-ID: <007f01c24a15$81a22110$ab0110ac@meshnetworks.com> Reply-To: "Phil Neumiller" <pneumiller@meshnetworks.com> From: "Phil Neumiller" <pneumiller@meshnetworks.com> To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, "'Sudarshan N Raghavan'" <snraghav@ieee.org>, <manet@ietf.org> References: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AC06C@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:52:54 -0400 Organization: MeshNetworks, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > 2. The fact that IP addresses are hierarchical. Must this necessarily be the case? It may be that the do indeed have some sort of aggragation to limite route table size, but the MIP static home address is used for the purposes of MANET routing. ;-) -Phil _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:56:43 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08521 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJt7o14664; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:55:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJr4o14582 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:53:04 -0400 Received: from meshpdc.meshnetworks.com ([205.245.27.196]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08386 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from neumillersimul (neumiller-simul.meshnetworks.com [172.16.1.171]) by meshpdc.meshnetworks.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id RJXRBRXL; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:52:56 -0400 Message-ID: <007f01c24a15$81a22110$ab0110ac@meshnetworks.com> Reply-To: "Phil Neumiller" <pneumiller@meshnetworks.com> From: "Phil Neumiller" <pneumiller@meshnetworks.com> To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, "'Sudarshan N Raghavan'" <snraghav@ieee.org>, <manet@ietf.org> References: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AC06C@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:52:54 -0400 Organization: MeshNetworks, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > 2. The fact that IP addresses are hierarchical. Must this necessarily be the case? It may be that the do indeed have some sort of aggragation to limite route table size, but the MIP static home address is used for the purposes of MANET routing. ;-) -Phil _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:57:08 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08544 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MJw8814873 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:58:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJw7o14869 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:58:07 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08515 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJuAo14744; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:56:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJt4o14657 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:55:04 -0400 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08419 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA23020 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:54:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2002082215542206017 ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:54:23 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20020822154715.0311b598@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:54:21 -0400 To: "Sudarshan N Raghavan" <snraghav@ieee.org>, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>, <manet@ietf.org> From: Joe Macker <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols In-Reply-To: <008301c24a0d$1a4fe8b0$1a6c0198@ecew2k.ncsu.edu> References: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AB7EF@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> At 02:52 PM 8/22/2002 -0400, Sudarshan N Raghavan wrote: >Thats right ... When we bring TCP into the picture, we are comparing two >different layers. TCP indeed tries to fit a connection oriented mechanism >into a connectionless framework to provide reliability to an unrelaible >network layer. When we consider MANETs we seem to be bringing down this >connection oriented mechanism from the transport layer to the network layer. This is not generally true for MANET protocols as you imply (which ones are you talking about), but could be argued for those that maintain path state at the endpoints (and must perform end-to-end repairing). Only, a subset of the considered IDs do this (and in those cases there are often optional modes as well to act more distributed) so please be more specific in your conjecturing. >We can postulate that we need to do this because the nodes are mobile and >wireless links are inherently unreliable. However, the essence of the fact >that IP is a connectionless protocol is lost. IP just becomes an addressing >scheme for identifying the nodes. > >Regards, >Sudarshan N Raghavan >Graduate Student, Computer Science >NC State University > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> >To: "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>; <manet@ietf.org> >Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:12 PM >Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > >> Venkata, >> >> I agree about maintaining state as an attribute of connection-oriented >protocols. I also agree that you can be connection-oriented at the Transport >Layer, for example, but connectionless at the Network Layer. >> >> Take a situation where each host of a MANET must determine the complete >path before forwarding packets, as (I believe) Raghavan postulates. To me, >the fact that each host must keep an explicit list of hops to reach a >destination means that the host is maintaining Network Layer state >information. So I believe you have created a connection-oriented Network >Layer, in effect. If one of the hops disappears, you need to establish a new >path, just as you would in an ATM network, if a switch along your ATM SVC >fails. No? >> >> Bert >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:27 PM >> > To: 'Sudarshan N Raghavan'; manet@ietf.org >> > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols >> > >> > >> > Raghavan, >> > >> > IMHO, you are mixing different things here. >> > Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable >> > to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control >> > plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. >> > >> > If you want a connection oriented network, then you >> > may have to signal some information along that path >> > to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to >> > destination (the state information is not necessarily >> > maintained at every hop to the destination) >> > >> > In other words, you can't just compare message types >> > (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege >> > that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. >> > >> > Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, >> > But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- >> > oriented L3 frameworks. >> > >> > Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are >> > implementing a connection using the IP framework and >> > a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit >> > a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless >> > framework ?" >> > >> > The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs >> > hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection >> > oriented. >> > >> > -- >> > Venkata. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] >> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM >> > To: manet@ietf.org >> > Subject: [manet] On demand protocols >> > >> > >> > Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two >> > phases for >> > route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This >> > seems analogous to >> > a connection oriented framework. The route request can be >> > treated as a Route >> > Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup >> > Acknowledge. If we >> > are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and >> > an on-demand >> > protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a >> > connectionless framework ?? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Sudarshan N Raghavan >> > Graduate Student, Computer Science >> > NC State University >> > _______________________________________________ >> > manet mailing list >> > manet@ietf.org >> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> > >_______________________________________________ >manet mailing list >manet@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 15:57:35 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08563 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJuAo14744; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:56:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MJt4o14657 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:55:04 -0400 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08419 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA23020 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:54:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2002082215542206017 ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:54:23 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20020822154715.0311b598@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:54:21 -0400 To: "Sudarshan N Raghavan" <snraghav@ieee.org>, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>, <manet@ietf.org> From: Joe Macker <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Subject: Re: [manet] On demand protocols In-Reply-To: <008301c24a0d$1a4fe8b0$1a6c0198@ecew2k.ncsu.edu> References: <D18F53ABCD79C14495301518A54E52200AB7EF@xch-ne-01.ne.nos.boeing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> At 02:52 PM 8/22/2002 -0400, Sudarshan N Raghavan wrote: >Thats right ... When we bring TCP into the picture, we are comparing two >different layers. TCP indeed tries to fit a connection oriented mechanism >into a connectionless framework to provide reliability to an unrelaible >network layer. When we consider MANETs we seem to be bringing down this >connection oriented mechanism from the transport layer to the network layer. This is not generally true for MANET protocols as you imply (which ones are you talking about), but could be argued for those that maintain path state at the endpoints (and must perform end-to-end repairing). Only, a subset of the considered IDs do this (and in those cases there are often optional modes as well to act more distributed) so please be more specific in your conjecturing. >We can postulate that we need to do this because the nodes are mobile and >wireless links are inherently unreliable. However, the essence of the fact >that IP is a connectionless protocol is lost. IP just becomes an addressing >scheme for identifying the nodes. > >Regards, >Sudarshan N Raghavan >Graduate Student, Computer Science >NC State University > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> >To: "'Naidu, Venkata'" <Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com>; <manet@ietf.org> >Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:12 PM >Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols > > >> Venkata, >> >> I agree about maintaining state as an attribute of connection-oriented >protocols. I also agree that you can be connection-oriented at the Transport >Layer, for example, but connectionless at the Network Layer. >> >> Take a situation where each host of a MANET must determine the complete >path before forwarding packets, as (I believe) Raghavan postulates. To me, >the fact that each host must keep an explicit list of hops to reach a >destination means that the host is maintaining Network Layer state >information. So I believe you have created a connection-oriented Network >Layer, in effect. If one of the hops disappears, you need to establish a new >path, just as you would in an ATM network, if a switch along your ATM SVC >fails. No? >> >> Bert >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@marconi.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:27 PM >> > To: 'Sudarshan N Raghavan'; manet@ietf.org >> > Subject: RE: [manet] On demand protocols >> > >> > >> > Raghavan, >> > >> > IMHO, you are mixing different things here. >> > Connection-oriented vs Connection-less is applicable >> > to the forwarding plane (in a broader sense). Control >> > plane is responsible to achieve the desired result. >> > >> > If you want a connection oriented network, then you >> > may have to signal some information along that path >> > to establish/maintain the *state* along the path to >> > destination (the state information is not necessarily >> > maintained at every hop to the destination) >> > >> > In other words, you can't just compare message types >> > (Request/Reply/Indiation/Confiration etc) and allege >> > that the system is connection-oriented or vice versa. >> > >> > Let me ask you a question, TCP is connection-oriented, >> > But it runs on connection-less as well as connection- >> > oriented L3 frameworks. >> > >> > Now ask the same question w.r.t TCP - "If we are >> > implementing a connection using the IP framework and >> > a transport protocol like TCP, are we trying to fit >> > a connection oriented mechanism into a connectionless >> > framework ?" >> > >> > The answer is simple: it's relative. End-to-end vs >> > hop-by-hop _or_ on which layer it is connection >> > oriented. >> > >> > -- >> > Venkata. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Sudarshan N Raghavan [mailto:snraghav@unity.ncsu.edu] >> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:32 AM >> > To: manet@ietf.org >> > Subject: [manet] On demand protocols >> > >> > >> > Most on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks use two >> > phases for >> > route establishment; Route Request and Route Reply. This >> > seems analogous to >> > a connection oriented framework. The route request can be >> > treated as a Route >> > Setup message and the route reply is similar to a Setup >> > Acknowledge. If we >> > are implementing an ad hoc network using the IP framework and >> > an on-demand >> > protocol, are we trying to fit a connection oriented mechanism into a >> > connectionless framework ?? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Sudarshan N Raghavan >> > Graduate Student, Computer Science >> > NC State University >> > _______________________________________________ >> > manet mailing list >> > manet@ietf.org >> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> > >_______________________________________________ >manet mailing list >manet@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Sat Aug 24 16:04:30 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16842 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 16:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7OK2Go21012; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 16:02:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7OJs1o20369 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:54:01 -0400 Received: from dirf.bris.ac.uk (dirf.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16545 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from golf.een.bris.ac.uk by dirf.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:53:55 +0100 Received: from EEN9097.een.bris.ac.uk (een9097.een.bris.ac.uk [137.222.189.97]) by golf.een.bris.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23920 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:49:03 +0100 (BST) From: "D Kothris, Electrical & Electronic Engineering" <D.Kothris@bristol.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:49:05 +0100 To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <EXECMAIL.1020824204905.A@EEN9097.bristol.ac.uk> Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [manet] Protocol file formats Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hello, I need to find information on how to generate mobility trace files (format). I have built a tool that generates mobility traces and i need the format of the mobility traces file for ns-2 so that I can generate compatible files to read from. Could anyone kindly point out sources of information on this subject? Regards Dimos _________________________________________________________________ ***************************************************************** Dimosthenis Kothris Centre for Communications Research, University of Bristol, Network & Protocols group Address: Contact numbers: _________________________________________________________________ Network & Protocols Center for Communcations research Merchant Venturers Building Tel : +44 117 903 1104 Woodland Road Fax : +44 117 954 5206 Bristol BS8 1UB Mobile: +44 7779 40 48 42 United Kingdom Email : d.kothris@bristol.ac.uk ***************************************************************** _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Aug 24 16:10:25 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16982 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 16:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7OKBP621251 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 16:11:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7OKBPo21248 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 16:11:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16964 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 16:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7OK2Go21012; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 16:02:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7OJs1o20369 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:54:01 -0400 Received: from dirf.bris.ac.uk (dirf.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16545 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from golf.een.bris.ac.uk by dirf.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:53:55 +0100 Received: from EEN9097.een.bris.ac.uk (een9097.een.bris.ac.uk [137.222.189.97]) by golf.een.bris.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23920 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:49:03 +0100 (BST) From: "D Kothris, Electrical & Electronic Engineering" <D.Kothris@bristol.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:49:05 +0100 To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <EXECMAIL.1020824204905.A@EEN9097.bristol.ac.uk> Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [manet] Protocol file formats Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hello, I need to find information on how to generate mobility trace files (format). I have built a tool that generates mobility traces and i need the format of the mobility traces file for ns-2 so that I can generate compatible files to read from. Could anyone kindly point out sources of information on this subject? Regards Dimos _________________________________________________________________ ***************************************************************** Dimosthenis Kothris Centre for Communications Research, University of Bristol, Network & Protocols group Address: Contact numbers: _________________________________________________________________ Network & Protocols Center for Communcations research Merchant Venturers Building Tel : +44 117 903 1104 Woodland Road Fax : +44 117 954 5206 Bristol BS8 1UB Mobile: +44 7779 40 48 42 United Kingdom Email : d.kothris@bristol.ac.uk ***************************************************************** _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 27 05:26:21 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15930 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9O3o29781; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:24:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9HQo29646 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:17:26 -0400 Received: from macker.loria.fr (macker.loria.fr [152.81.1.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15735 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.loria.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14984A9B for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:16:50 +0200 (MEST) X-Amavix: Anti-virus check done by McAfee X-Amavix: Scanned by Amavix Received: from loria.fr (xrousse.loria.fr [152.81.7.76]) by macker.loria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F404A9B for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:16:48 +0200 (MEST) Received: (from fleury@localhost) by loria.fr (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g7R9ETq21024 for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:14:29 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:14:29 +0200 From: Eric Fleury <Eric.Fleury@loria.fr> Message-Id: <200208270914.g7R9ETq21024@loria.fr> To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Call for Participation, DIALM 2002 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please could you broadcast this message. Please Accept Our Sincere Apologies Should you Receive Multiple Copies of this CFP ----------------------------------------------------------------------- _____________________________ C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N ----------------------------- DIAL M for Mobility ___________________ 6th International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications September, 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, USA (In conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002) Sponsored by ACM Sigmobile http://dialm.insa-lyon.fr/ SCOPE Mobile computing and communications such as portable phones and Personal Digital Assistants will have an enormous impact on all of us over the next several decades. The introduction of mobility raises a number of new research questions. For many of them, approaches based on the continuous case are not satisfactory, and discrete models and algorithms are required in order to deal with real applications. The workshop DIAL M for Mobility is devoted to discrete algorithms and discrete modelling in the context of mobile and wireless computing and communications. It is intended to be a lively meeting, covering many of the algorithmic and discrete aspects of this field going from operations research to radio engineering problems. It aims, in particular, at fostering the cooperation among practitioners and theoreticians of the field. Following the success the first workshop held jointly with Mobicom 97 in Budapest, DIAL M for Mobility will be co-located with ACM/IEEE MobiCom 98 and will be composed of contributed and invited talks. FINANCIAL SUPPORT A limited support is available for students to attend the conference. Please send an email to one of the Program Chairs to obtain further information. We encourage the students to apply as soon as possible. TENTATIVE PROGRAM (The times might change slightly in order to coordinate with othe workshops) SESSION ONE 8.50-9.00 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 9.00-10.00 a.m. INVITED TALK: Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design: Recent Results and Future Directions Professor Joan Feigenbaum, Dept. Computer Science, Yale University. joint work with Dr. Scott Shenker, ACIRI Coffee Break 10.00 - 10.30 a.m. SESSION TWO 10.30-12.20 p.m. Title: Asymptotically Optimal Geometric Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing Author: Fabian Kuhn, Roger Wattenhofer, Aaron Zollinger Title: Cluster Based Routing Using a k-Tree Core Backbone for Mobile Ad hoc Networks Authors: Saurabh Srivastava, Ratan K. Ghosh Title: A Theoretical Study of Optimization Techniques USed in Resgistration Area Based Location Mangement: Models and Online Algorithms Authors: Sandeep Gupta, Goran Konjevod, Georgios Varsamopoulos. Title: Self-Stabilizing Mutual Exclusion Using Tokens in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Yu Chen, Jennifer L. Welch Lunch 12.20 - 1.30 p.m. SESSION THREE 1.40-2.40 p.m. INVITED TALK: Energy v/s Performance in Wireless Networks Professor Hari Balakrishnan Laboratory of Computer Science MIT Coffee Break 2.40-3.00 p.m. SESSION 3: 3.00-4.15 p.m. Title: Scalable Analysis and Design of Ad Hoc Networks via Random Graph Theory Authors: Andras Farago Title: Approximation Algorithms for the Mobile Piercing Set Problem with Applications to Clustering in Ad-hoc Networks Authors: Hai Huang, Andrea W. Richa, Michael Segal Title: Simple Heuristics and PTASs for Intersection Graphs in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Xiang-Yang Li, Yu Wang ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE CHAIRS �ric FLEURY CITI/INRIA Rh�ne-Alpes Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA de Lyon B�t. L�onard de Vinci - 21 av. Jean Capelle F-69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Work Phone: +33 472 434 421 Fax Number: +33 472 436 227 Email: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr Madhav MARATHE Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Work Phone: +1 505 667 8010 Fax Number: +1 505 665 6474 Email: marathe@lanl.gov TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE P. Agarwal, Duke University, USA A. Bar-Noy, CUNY -- Brooklyn College, USA P. Crescenzi, U. Firenze, Italia B. Ducourthial, UTC, France M. Gerla, UCLA, USA P. Jacquet, INRIA, France S. Krumke, ZIB Berlin, Germany J-Y. Leboudec, EPFL, Switzerland G. R. Mateus, UFMG, Brasil M. Morvan, ENS-Lyon, France S. Naor, Technion, Israel D. Peleg, Weizmann Institute, Israel C. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, USA A. Richa, ASU, USA B. Schieber, IBM Watson, USA M. Steenstrup, BBN, USA A. Srinivasan, University of Maryland, USA P. Widmayer, ETH Zurich, Switzerland STEERING COMMITTEE Ian Akyildiz, Georgia Tech, USA Maurizio Bonuccelli, University of Pisa, Italy Afonso Ferreira, CNRS - I3S - INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, France Errol Lloyd, University of Delaware, USA Arunabha Sen, Arizona State University, USA. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Aug 27 05:36:14 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16148 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:36:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7R9bCp30561 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:37:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9bCo30558 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:37:12 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16141 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:35:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9O3o29781; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:24:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9HQo29646 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:17:26 -0400 Received: from macker.loria.fr (macker.loria.fr [152.81.1.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15735 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.loria.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14984A9B for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:16:50 +0200 (MEST) X-Amavix: Anti-virus check done by McAfee X-Amavix: Scanned by Amavix Received: from loria.fr (xrousse.loria.fr [152.81.7.76]) by macker.loria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F404A9B for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:16:48 +0200 (MEST) Received: (from fleury@localhost) by loria.fr (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g7R9ETq21024 for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:14:29 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:14:29 +0200 From: Eric Fleury <Eric.Fleury@loria.fr> Message-Id: <200208270914.g7R9ETq21024@loria.fr> To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Call for Participation, DIALM 2002 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please could you broadcast this message. Please Accept Our Sincere Apologies Should you Receive Multiple Copies of this CFP ----------------------------------------------------------------------- _____________________________ C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N ----------------------------- DIAL M for Mobility ___________________ 6th International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications September, 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, USA (In conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002) Sponsored by ACM Sigmobile http://dialm.insa-lyon.fr/ SCOPE Mobile computing and communications such as portable phones and Personal Digital Assistants will have an enormous impact on all of us over the next several decades. The introduction of mobility raises a number of new research questions. For many of them, approaches based on the continuous case are not satisfactory, and discrete models and algorithms are required in order to deal with real applications. The workshop DIAL M for Mobility is devoted to discrete algorithms and discrete modelling in the context of mobile and wireless computing and communications. It is intended to be a lively meeting, covering many of the algorithmic and discrete aspects of this field going from operations research to radio engineering problems. It aims, in particular, at fostering the cooperation among practitioners and theoreticians of the field. Following the success the first workshop held jointly with Mobicom 97 in Budapest, DIAL M for Mobility will be co-located with ACM/IEEE MobiCom 98 and will be composed of contributed and invited talks. FINANCIAL SUPPORT A limited support is available for students to attend the conference. Please send an email to one of the Program Chairs to obtain further information. We encourage the students to apply as soon as possible. TENTATIVE PROGRAM (The times might change slightly in order to coordinate with othe workshops) SESSION ONE 8.50-9.00 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 9.00-10.00 a.m. INVITED TALK: Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design: Recent Results and Future Directions Professor Joan Feigenbaum, Dept. Computer Science, Yale University. joint work with Dr. Scott Shenker, ACIRI Coffee Break 10.00 - 10.30 a.m. SESSION TWO 10.30-12.20 p.m. Title: Asymptotically Optimal Geometric Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing Author: Fabian Kuhn, Roger Wattenhofer, Aaron Zollinger Title: Cluster Based Routing Using a k-Tree Core Backbone for Mobile Ad hoc Networks Authors: Saurabh Srivastava, Ratan K. Ghosh Title: A Theoretical Study of Optimization Techniques USed in Resgistration Area Based Location Mangement: Models and Online Algorithms Authors: Sandeep Gupta, Goran Konjevod, Georgios Varsamopoulos. Title: Self-Stabilizing Mutual Exclusion Using Tokens in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Yu Chen, Jennifer L. Welch Lunch 12.20 - 1.30 p.m. SESSION THREE 1.40-2.40 p.m. INVITED TALK: Energy v/s Performance in Wireless Networks Professor Hari Balakrishnan Laboratory of Computer Science MIT Coffee Break 2.40-3.00 p.m. SESSION 3: 3.00-4.15 p.m. Title: Scalable Analysis and Design of Ad Hoc Networks via Random Graph Theory Authors: Andras Farago Title: Approximation Algorithms for the Mobile Piercing Set Problem with Applications to Clustering in Ad-hoc Networks Authors: Hai Huang, Andrea W. Richa, Michael Segal Title: Simple Heuristics and PTASs for Intersection Graphs in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Xiang-Yang Li, Yu Wang ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE CHAIRS �ric FLEURY CITI/INRIA Rh�ne-Alpes Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA de Lyon B�t. L�onard de Vinci - 21 av. Jean Capelle F-69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Work Phone: +33 472 434 421 Fax Number: +33 472 436 227 Email: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr Madhav MARATHE Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Work Phone: +1 505 667 8010 Fax Number: +1 505 665 6474 Email: marathe@lanl.gov TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE P. Agarwal, Duke University, USA A. Bar-Noy, CUNY -- Brooklyn College, USA P. Crescenzi, U. Firenze, Italia B. Ducourthial, UTC, France M. Gerla, UCLA, USA P. Jacquet, INRIA, France S. Krumke, ZIB Berlin, Germany J-Y. Leboudec, EPFL, Switzerland G. R. Mateus, UFMG, Brasil M. Morvan, ENS-Lyon, France S. Naor, Technion, Israel D. Peleg, Weizmann Institute, Israel C. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, USA A. Richa, ASU, USA B. Schieber, IBM Watson, USA M. Steenstrup, BBN, USA A. Srinivasan, University of Maryland, USA P. Widmayer, ETH Zurich, Switzerland STEERING COMMITTEE Ian Akyildiz, Georgia Tech, USA Maurizio Bonuccelli, University of Pisa, Italy Afonso Ferreira, CNRS - I3S - INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, France Errol Lloyd, University of Delaware, USA Arunabha Sen, Arizona State University, USA. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 27 05:44:22 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16255 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:44:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9hao31018; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:43:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9fao30935 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:41:36 -0400 Received: from mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16204 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:40:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D6246E8002BB8A1 for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:41:03 +0200 Received: from Cthulhu (80.13.43.136) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D49FF79008CA5AA for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:41:03 +0200 Received: from [134.214.144.147] (helo=loria.fr) by claude.homeip.net [Cthulhu] ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:41:01 +0200 Message-ID: <3D6B48F5.2070200@loria.fr> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:40:05 +0200 From: Eric Fleury <Eric.Fleury@loria.fr> Organization: CITI - INRIA User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020405 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet <manet@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] Call for Participation, DIALM 2002 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please could you broadcast this message. Please Accept Our Sincere Apologies Should you Receive Multiple Copies of this CFP ----------------------------------------------------------------------- _____________________________ C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N ----------------------------- DIAL M for Mobility ___________________ 6th International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications September, 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, USA (In conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002) Sponsored by ACM Sigmobile http://dialm.insa-lyon.fr/ SCOPE Mobile computing and communications such as portable phones and Personal Digital Assistants will have an enormous impact on all of us over the next several decades. The introduction of mobility raises a number of new research questions. For many of them, approaches based on the continuous case are not satisfactory, and discrete models and algorithms are required in order to deal with real applications. The workshop DIAL M for Mobility is devoted to discrete algorithms and discrete modelling in the context of mobile and wireless computing and communications. It is intended to be a lively meeting, covering many of the algorithmic and discrete aspects of this field going from operations research to radio engineering problems. It aims, in particular, at fostering the cooperation among practitioners and theoreticians of the field. Following the success the first workshop held jointly with Mobicom 97 in Budapest, DIAL M for Mobility will be co-located with ACM/IEEE MobiCom 98 and will be composed of contributed and invited talks. FINANCIAL SUPPORT A limited support is available for students to attend the conference. Please send an email to one of the Program Chairs to obtain further information. We encourage the students to apply as soon as possible. TENTATIVE PROGRAM (The times might change slightly in order to coordinate with othe workshops) SESSION ONE 8.50-9.00 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 9.00-10.00 a.m. INVITED TALK: Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design: Recent Results and Future Directions Professor Joan Feigenbaum, Dept. Computer Science, Yale University. joint work with Dr. Scott Shenker, ACIRI Coffee Break 10.00 - 10.30 a.m. SESSION TWO 10.30-12.20 p.m. Title: Asymptotically Optimal Geometric Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing Author: Fabian Kuhn, Roger Wattenhofer, Aaron Zollinger Title: Cluster Based Routing Using a k-Tree Core Backbone for Mobile Ad hoc Networks Authors: Saurabh Srivastava, Ratan K. Ghosh Title: A Theoretical Study of Optimization Techniques USed in Resgistration Area Based Location Mangement: Models and Online Algorithms Authors: Sandeep Gupta, Goran Konjevod, Georgios Varsamopoulos. Title: Self-Stabilizing Mutual Exclusion Using Tokens in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Yu Chen, Jennifer L. Welch Lunch 12.20 - 1.30 p.m. SESSION THREE 1.40-2.40 p.m. INVITED TALK: Energy v/s Performance in Wireless Networks Professor Hari Balakrishnan Laboratory of Computer Science MIT Coffee Break 2.40-3.00 p.m. SESSION 3: 3.00-4.15 p.m. Title: Scalable Analysis and Design of Ad Hoc Networks via Random Graph Theory Authors: Andras Farago Title: Approximation Algorithms for the Mobile Piercing Set Problem with Applications to Clustering in Ad-hoc Networks Authors: Hai Huang, Andrea W. Richa, Michael Segal Title: Simple Heuristics and PTASs for Intersection Graphs in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Xiang-Yang Li, Yu Wang ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE CHAIRS �ric FLEURY CITI/INRIA Rh�ne-Alpes Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA de Lyon B�t. L�onard de Vinci - 21 av. Jean Capelle F-69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Work Phone: +33 472 434 421 Fax Number: +33 472 436 227 Email: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr Madhav MARATHE Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Work Phone: +1 505 667 8010 Fax Number: +1 505 665 6474 Email: marathe@lanl.gov TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE P. Agarwal, Duke University, USA A. Bar-Noy, CUNY -- Brooklyn College, USA P. Crescenzi, U. Firenze, Italia B. Ducourthial, UTC, France M. Gerla, UCLA, USA P. Jacquet, INRIA, France S. Krumke, ZIB Berlin, Germany J-Y. Leboudec, EPFL, Switzerland G. R. Mateus, UFMG, Brasil M. Morvan, ENS-Lyon, France S. Naor, Technion, Israel D. Peleg, Weizmann Institute, Israel C. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, USA A. Richa, ASU, USA B. Schieber, IBM Watson, USA M. Steenstrup, BBN, USA A. Srinivasan, University of Maryland, USA P. Widmayer, ETH Zurich, Switzerland STEERING COMMITTEE Ian Akyildiz, Georgia Tech, USA Maurizio Bonuccelli, University of Pisa, Italy Afonso Ferreira, CNRS - I3S - INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, France Errol Lloyd, University of Delaware, USA Arunabha Sen, Arizona State University, USA. -- Eric FLEURY e-mail: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr CITI - INRIA http: www.loria.fr/~fleury Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA-Lyon Tel: +33 472 436 421 B�t. L�onard de Vinci - 21, av.Jean Capelle Fax: +33 472 436 227 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Cel: +33 678 268 036 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Aug 27 05:49:43 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16342 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7R9ofG31191 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:50:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9oeo31186 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:50:40 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16335 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9hao31018; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:43:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9fao30935 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:41:36 -0400 Received: from mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16204 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:40:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D6246E8002BB8A1 for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:41:03 +0200 Received: from Cthulhu (80.13.43.136) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D49FF79008CA5AA for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:41:03 +0200 Received: from [134.214.144.147] (helo=loria.fr) by claude.homeip.net [Cthulhu] ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:41:01 +0200 Message-ID: <3D6B48F5.2070200@loria.fr> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:40:05 +0200 From: Eric Fleury <Eric.Fleury@loria.fr> Organization: CITI - INRIA User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020405 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet <manet@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] Call for Participation, DIALM 2002 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please could you broadcast this message. Please Accept Our Sincere Apologies Should you Receive Multiple Copies of this CFP ----------------------------------------------------------------------- _____________________________ C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N ----------------------------- DIAL M for Mobility ___________________ 6th International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications September, 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, USA (In conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002) Sponsored by ACM Sigmobile http://dialm.insa-lyon.fr/ SCOPE Mobile computing and communications such as portable phones and Personal Digital Assistants will have an enormous impact on all of us over the next several decades. The introduction of mobility raises a number of new research questions. For many of them, approaches based on the continuous case are not satisfactory, and discrete models and algorithms are required in order to deal with real applications. The workshop DIAL M for Mobility is devoted to discrete algorithms and discrete modelling in the context of mobile and wireless computing and communications. It is intended to be a lively meeting, covering many of the algorithmic and discrete aspects of this field going from operations research to radio engineering problems. It aims, in particular, at fostering the cooperation among practitioners and theoreticians of the field. Following the success the first workshop held jointly with Mobicom 97 in Budapest, DIAL M for Mobility will be co-located with ACM/IEEE MobiCom 98 and will be composed of contributed and invited talks. FINANCIAL SUPPORT A limited support is available for students to attend the conference. Please send an email to one of the Program Chairs to obtain further information. We encourage the students to apply as soon as possible. TENTATIVE PROGRAM (The times might change slightly in order to coordinate with othe workshops) SESSION ONE 8.50-9.00 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 9.00-10.00 a.m. INVITED TALK: Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design: Recent Results and Future Directions Professor Joan Feigenbaum, Dept. Computer Science, Yale University. joint work with Dr. Scott Shenker, ACIRI Coffee Break 10.00 - 10.30 a.m. SESSION TWO 10.30-12.20 p.m. Title: Asymptotically Optimal Geometric Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing Author: Fabian Kuhn, Roger Wattenhofer, Aaron Zollinger Title: Cluster Based Routing Using a k-Tree Core Backbone for Mobile Ad hoc Networks Authors: Saurabh Srivastava, Ratan K. Ghosh Title: A Theoretical Study of Optimization Techniques USed in Resgistration Area Based Location Mangement: Models and Online Algorithms Authors: Sandeep Gupta, Goran Konjevod, Georgios Varsamopoulos. Title: Self-Stabilizing Mutual Exclusion Using Tokens in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Yu Chen, Jennifer L. Welch Lunch 12.20 - 1.30 p.m. SESSION THREE 1.40-2.40 p.m. INVITED TALK: Energy v/s Performance in Wireless Networks Professor Hari Balakrishnan Laboratory of Computer Science MIT Coffee Break 2.40-3.00 p.m. SESSION 3: 3.00-4.15 p.m. Title: Scalable Analysis and Design of Ad Hoc Networks via Random Graph Theory Authors: Andras Farago Title: Approximation Algorithms for the Mobile Piercing Set Problem with Applications to Clustering in Ad-hoc Networks Authors: Hai Huang, Andrea W. Richa, Michael Segal Title: Simple Heuristics and PTASs for Intersection Graphs in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Xiang-Yang Li, Yu Wang ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE CHAIRS �ric FLEURY CITI/INRIA Rh�ne-Alpes Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA de Lyon B�t. L�onard de Vinci - 21 av. Jean Capelle F-69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Work Phone: +33 472 434 421 Fax Number: +33 472 436 227 Email: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr Madhav MARATHE Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Work Phone: +1 505 667 8010 Fax Number: +1 505 665 6474 Email: marathe@lanl.gov TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE P. Agarwal, Duke University, USA A. Bar-Noy, CUNY -- Brooklyn College, USA P. Crescenzi, U. Firenze, Italia B. Ducourthial, UTC, France M. Gerla, UCLA, USA P. Jacquet, INRIA, France S. Krumke, ZIB Berlin, Germany J-Y. Leboudec, EPFL, Switzerland G. R. Mateus, UFMG, Brasil M. Morvan, ENS-Lyon, France S. Naor, Technion, Israel D. Peleg, Weizmann Institute, Israel C. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, USA A. Richa, ASU, USA B. Schieber, IBM Watson, USA M. Steenstrup, BBN, USA A. Srinivasan, University of Maryland, USA P. Widmayer, ETH Zurich, Switzerland STEERING COMMITTEE Ian Akyildiz, Georgia Tech, USA Maurizio Bonuccelli, University of Pisa, Italy Afonso Ferreira, CNRS - I3S - INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, France Errol Lloyd, University of Delaware, USA Arunabha Sen, Arizona State University, USA. -- Eric FLEURY e-mail: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr CITI - INRIA http: www.loria.fr/~fleury Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA-Lyon Tel: +33 472 436 421 B�t. L�onard de Vinci - 21, av.Jean Capelle Fax: +33 472 436 227 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Cel: +33 678 268 036 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Aug 27 09:27:36 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23008 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7RDSbA09270 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:28:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RDSao09267 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:28:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22998 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RDLjo09038; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:21:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RDJio08936 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:19:44 -0400 Received: from infres.enst.fr (infres.enst.fr [137.194.160.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22656 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:18:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from schaula (dhcp162-221.enst.fr [137.194.162.221]) by infres.enst.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 601421984 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:19:41 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <001e01c24dcd$9368f980$dda2c289@galaxy.enst.fr> From: "Moustafa Hasnaa" <moustafa@enst.fr> To: <manet@ietf.org> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:28:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C24DDE.56E5E2A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Subject: [manet] Multicast in ns ???? Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C24DDE.56E5E2A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I need an information concerning multicast simulation in ns, When simulating a multicast routing protocol under ns, in allocating = multicast address =3D=3D> this is through the tcl only or something is = required also in the c++ code of the protocol. thanks in advance. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C24DDE.56E5E2A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2>Hi all,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2> I need an = information=20 concerning multicast simulation in ns,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2> = When</FONT><FONT=20 face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2> simulating a multicast routing = protocol=20 under ns, in allocating multicast address =3D=3D> this is = through the tcl=20 only or something is required also in the c++ code of the = protocol.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2>thanks in=20 advance.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C24DDE.56E5E2A0-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 27 09:28:02 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23037 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:28:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RDLjo09038; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:21:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RDJio08936 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:19:44 -0400 Received: from infres.enst.fr (infres.enst.fr [137.194.160.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22656 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:18:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from schaula (dhcp162-221.enst.fr [137.194.162.221]) by infres.enst.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 601421984 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:19:41 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <001e01c24dcd$9368f980$dda2c289@galaxy.enst.fr> From: "Moustafa Hasnaa" <moustafa@enst.fr> To: <manet@ietf.org> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:28:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C24DDE.56E5E2A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Subject: [manet] Multicast in ns ???? Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C24DDE.56E5E2A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I need an information concerning multicast simulation in ns, When simulating a multicast routing protocol under ns, in allocating = multicast address =3D=3D> this is through the tcl only or something is = required also in the c++ code of the protocol. thanks in advance. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C24DDE.56E5E2A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2>Hi all,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2> I need an = information=20 concerning multicast simulation in ns,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2> = When</FONT><FONT=20 face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2> simulating a multicast routing = protocol=20 under ns, in allocating multicast address =3D=3D> this is = through the tcl=20 only or something is required also in the c++ code of the = protocol.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Bookman Old Style" size=3D2>thanks in=20 advance.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C24DDE.56E5E2A0-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 27 11:15:26 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27481 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:15:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RFEYo15006; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:14:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RF22o14025 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:02:02 -0400 Received: from smtp.263.net ([211.157.130.147]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26720 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.263.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3AEF11DAFCFE4 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:49:44 +0800 (CST) Received: from harry (unknown [210.12.4.99]) by 192.168.30.28 (Coremail) with SMTP id mRAAAISRaz0IHgRj.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:49:44 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:59:39 +0800 From: "Harry" <hr_befine@263.net> To: MANET mail list <manet@ietf.org> X-mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Message-Id: <20020827144944.3AEF11DAFCFE4@smtp.263.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g7RF22o14026 Subject: [manet] (no subject) Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit hi,MANET�� This is just a test. best regards ��Harry ��hr_befine@263.net ��2002-08-27 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Aug 27 11:18:17 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27710 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7RFJJF15168 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:19:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RFJJo15165 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:19:19 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27666 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RFEYo15006; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:14:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RF22o14025 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:02:02 -0400 Received: from smtp.263.net ([211.157.130.147]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26720 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.263.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3AEF11DAFCFE4 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:49:44 +0800 (CST) Received: from harry (unknown [210.12.4.99]) by 192.168.30.28 (Coremail) with SMTP id mRAAAISRaz0IHgRj.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:49:44 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:59:39 +0800 From: "Harry" <hr_befine@263.net> To: MANET mail list <manet@ietf.org> X-mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Message-Id: <20020827144944.3AEF11DAFCFE4@smtp.263.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g7RF22o14026 Subject: [manet] (no subject) Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit hi,MANET�� This is just a test. best regards ��Harry ��hr_befine@263.net ��2002-08-27 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 27 14:41:18 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06441 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RIeKo26486; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:40:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RIbuo26339 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:37:56 -0400 Received: from ddsmttayz003.sam.pentagon.mil (ddsmttayz003.sam.pentagon.mil [140.185.1.132]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06213 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ddsmttayz003 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RVSP1FNH>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:37:21 -0400 Message-ID: <E6C9FD1649B9D54BB280C4787AF20E376F47BD@osdn5.osd.mil> From: "Norton, Mark, , OSD-C3I" <Mark.Norton@osd.mil> To: "'manet@ietf.org'" <manet@ietf.org> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:38:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [manet] SEP 5 MANET DOD seminar Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Please post to the MANET working group. Subject: SEP 5 DOD MANET seminar Department of Defense will host a MANET seminar SEP 5, 9AM to 1PM in Crystal City VA. The objective of the seminar is to survey MANET protocols for Defense programs such as JTRS. Briefings are scheduled from BBN, SRI, ONR and Telecordia. The meeting is open to all Government personnel and DOD contractors. Attendance will be limited to 30. Point of contact is Mark Norton, mark.norton@osd.mil for additional information. Thank You > Mark Norton > OASD C3I, Wireless Directorate > 6000 Defense Pentagon > Washington, DC 20301-6000 > (703) 607-0711 (CM3, 6060) > Fax (703) 607-0658 mark.norton@osd.mil SIPR:mark.norton@osd.smil.mil IC:nortonm@c3i.ic.gov _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Aug 27 14:50:27 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06829 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:50:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7RIpVh26769 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:51:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RIpVo26766 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:51:31 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06807 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:49:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RIeKo26486; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:40:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RIbuo26339 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:37:56 -0400 Received: from ddsmttayz003.sam.pentagon.mil (ddsmttayz003.sam.pentagon.mil [140.185.1.132]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06213 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ddsmttayz003 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RVSP1FNH>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:37:21 -0400 Message-ID: <E6C9FD1649B9D54BB280C4787AF20E376F47BD@osdn5.osd.mil> From: "Norton, Mark, , OSD-C3I" <Mark.Norton@osd.mil> To: "'manet@ietf.org'" <manet@ietf.org> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:38:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [manet] SEP 5 MANET DOD seminar Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Please post to the MANET working group. Subject: SEP 5 DOD MANET seminar Department of Defense will host a MANET seminar SEP 5, 9AM to 1PM in Crystal City VA. The objective of the seminar is to survey MANET protocols for Defense programs such as JTRS. Briefings are scheduled from BBN, SRI, ONR and Telecordia. The meeting is open to all Government personnel and DOD contractors. Attendance will be limited to 30. Point of contact is Mark Norton, mark.norton@osd.mil for additional information. Thank You > Mark Norton > OASD C3I, Wireless Directorate > 6000 Defense Pentagon > Washington, DC 20301-6000 > (703) 607-0711 (CM3, 6060) > Fax (703) 607-0658 mark.norton@osd.mil SIPR:mark.norton@osd.smil.mil IC:nortonm@c3i.ic.gov _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 27 17:23:23 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13258 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:23:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RLM8o04241; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:22:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RLKOo04189 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:20:24 -0400 Received: from pilot25.cl.msu.edu (pilot25.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13119 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:18:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from msu.edu (elans.cse.msu.edu [35.9.43.164]) by pilot25.cl.msu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RLKBE55680 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:20:12 -0400 Message-ID: <3D6BED8C.7050007@msu.edu> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:22:20 -0400 From: "Zhou, Hongbo" <zhouhon1@msu.edu> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] some questions about 802.11 MAC beacon signal and Hello messages Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I have some simple questions about 802.11 MAC layer and Hello messages in routing protocols: (1) Access Points periodically broadcast MAC beacon signal, is it the same for mobile nodes in ad-hoc mode? (2) If not, in AODV draft, it seems only the nodes along active paths broadcast Hello messages and other nodes don't. In DSR draft, no Hello messages are specified at all. Then how is neighbor detection mechanism implemented in MANET? Thank you in advance. -- Best regards, Sincerely yours, Zhou, Hongbo (Bernie) ELANS Dept of Computer Science & Engineering Michigan State Univ. Email: zhouhon1@msu.edu Homepage: http://www.cse.msu.edu/~zhouhon1 Phone: (517) 353-4633 (O) _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Aug 27 17:28:06 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13371 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:28:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7RLTB904519 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:29:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RLTBo04512 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:29:11 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13355 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:27:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RLM8o04241; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:22:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RLKOo04189 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:20:24 -0400 Received: from pilot25.cl.msu.edu (pilot25.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13119 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:18:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from msu.edu (elans.cse.msu.edu [35.9.43.164]) by pilot25.cl.msu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RLKBE55680 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:20:12 -0400 Message-ID: <3D6BED8C.7050007@msu.edu> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:22:20 -0400 From: "Zhou, Hongbo" <zhouhon1@msu.edu> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] some questions about 802.11 MAC beacon signal and Hello messages Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I have some simple questions about 802.11 MAC layer and Hello messages in routing protocols: (1) Access Points periodically broadcast MAC beacon signal, is it the same for mobile nodes in ad-hoc mode? (2) If not, in AODV draft, it seems only the nodes along active paths broadcast Hello messages and other nodes don't. In DSR draft, no Hello messages are specified at all. Then how is neighbor detection mechanism implemented in MANET? Thank you in advance. -- Best regards, Sincerely yours, Zhou, Hongbo (Bernie) ELANS Dept of Computer Science & Engineering Michigan State Univ. Email: zhouhon1@msu.edu Homepage: http://www.cse.msu.edu/~zhouhon1 Phone: (517) 353-4633 (O) _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Tue Aug 27 18:00:06 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14191 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:00:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RLxVo05948; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:59:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RLwso05913 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:58:54 -0400 Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU [129.170.16.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14149 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:57:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dancer.Dartmouth.EDU (dancer.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.7]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25208 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:58:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-id: <42530482@dancer.Dartmouth.EDU> Date: 27 Aug 2002 17:58:46 EDT From: Noah.H.Miller@Dartmouth.EDU (Noah H. Miller) Reply-To: Noah.H.Miller@Dartmouth.EDU (TrustMeImTellingYouStories) To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [manet] DSR and ICMP Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hello, I am working on an simulator implementation of DSR, and I am unsure of how to notify the Application layer of failed messages. I believe ICMP is usually used when the MAC layer fails to transmit a packet, in which case the IP layer sends an ICMP packet to the originator of the data packet (whether the originator is local or several hops away). However, in DSR the Maintenance buffer might decide to retransmit or salvage the packet, in which case IP should not be allowed to report the packet as failed. Should DSR instead originate ICMP packets? Should it piggyback these packets on RERR packets, or else how would they get routed? How might ICMP and DSR relate in terms of the verticle OSI/ISO model? Thank you, Noah Miller _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Aug 27 18:08:47 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14492 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:08:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7RM9pk06936 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:09:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RM9po06933 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:09:51 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14471 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:08:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RLxVo05948; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:59:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RLwso05913 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:58:54 -0400 Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU [129.170.16.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14149 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:57:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dancer.Dartmouth.EDU (dancer.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.7]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25208 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:58:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-id: <42530482@dancer.Dartmouth.EDU> Date: 27 Aug 2002 17:58:46 EDT From: Noah.H.Miller@Dartmouth.EDU (Noah H. Miller) Reply-To: Noah.H.Miller@Dartmouth.EDU (TrustMeImTellingYouStories) To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [manet] DSR and ICMP Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hello, I am working on an simulator implementation of DSR, and I am unsure of how to notify the Application layer of failed messages. I believe ICMP is usually used when the MAC layer fails to transmit a packet, in which case the IP layer sends an ICMP packet to the originator of the data packet (whether the originator is local or several hops away). However, in DSR the Maintenance buffer might decide to retransmit or salvage the packet, in which case IP should not be allowed to report the packet as failed. Should DSR instead originate ICMP packets? Should it piggyback these packets on RERR packets, or else how would they get routed? How might ICMP and DSR relate in terms of the verticle OSI/ISO model? Thank you, Noah Miller _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 08:13:25 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26307 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SCC8o24262; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SC3do23241 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:03:39 -0400 Received: from smtp.263.net ([211.157.130.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25643 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.263.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E7741DE8704A for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:52:20 +0800 (CST) Received: from �� (unknown [210.12.4.99]) by 192.168.30.29 (Coremail) with SMTP id 2BIAAHG5bD3ADQRj.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:52:20 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:1:12 +0800 From: "Harry" <hr_befine@263.net> To: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org> X-mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Message-Id: <20020828115220.4E7741DE8704A@smtp.263.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g7SC3eo23242 Subject: [manet] correctness of FSR Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit hi,all�� Is there anyone who can tell me where i can get the papers about proving correctness of FRS. Thx a lot. best regards ��Harry ��hr_befine@263.net ��2002-08-28 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 08:21:18 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26740 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SCMJM24754 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:22:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SCMIo24747 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:22:18 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26724 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:20:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SCC8o24262; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SC3do23241 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:03:39 -0400 Received: from smtp.263.net ([211.157.130.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25643 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.263.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E7741DE8704A for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:52:20 +0800 (CST) Received: from �� (unknown [210.12.4.99]) by 192.168.30.29 (Coremail) with SMTP id 2BIAAHG5bD3ADQRj.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:52:20 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:1:12 +0800 From: "Harry" <hr_befine@263.net> To: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org> X-mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Message-Id: <20020828115220.4E7741DE8704A@smtp.263.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g7SC3eo23242 Subject: [manet] correctness of FSR Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit hi,all�� Is there anyone who can tell me where i can get the papers about proving correctness of FRS. Thx a lot. best regards ��Harry ��hr_befine@263.net ��2002-08-28 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 09:59:12 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00352 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:59:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SDwZo29880; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:58:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SDtgo29803 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:55:42 -0400 Received: from m1.cs.man.ac.uk (m1.cs.man.ac.uk [130.88.192.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00104 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eng002.cs.man.ac.uk by m1.cs.man.ac.uk (8.8.8/AL/MJK-2.0) id OAA24789; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:55:37 +0100 (BST) Received: (from tapselj0@localhost) by eng002.cs.man.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g7SDtmD04037 for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:55:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:55:48 +0100 From: John Tapsell <tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <20020828145548.A4031@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207091153110.9049-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu>; from kanodia@rice.edu on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:43:44AM -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g7SDtgo29804 Subject: [manet] RSVP Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hey, Sorry to always be the one to ask dumb questions... I'm trying to setup rsvp so that I can have a play with it. I followed http://dsmpls.atlantis.rug.ac.be/files/installation_rsvpd-0.60.txt exactly (except I used redhat 7.2 instead 7.0, and used linux-2.4.18 instead of .17) and everything seemed to go smoothly (I had to tweak the kernel patch a tiny bit). I'm now wondering 'now what?'. I ran "rsvpd -D" which complained that three interfaces I have chosen in /etc/label.conf (eth0, dummy0, and dummy1) didn't support CBQ (I have compiled in kernel support) but seemed to work otherwise. I ran ethereal, and ran rtest between the dummy devices, but ethereal didn't pick up the packets, but rstat showed the connection (but said I had reservered no QoS for the connection) I tried rtest between my eth0 and some fictious network address, and ethereal saw the PATH and TEAR messages. I'm now wondering how to test it better, just to have a play. Can anyone help? Thanks JohnFlux _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 10:06:02 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00654 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:06:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SE74j30497 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:07:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SE74o30494 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:07:04 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00641 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SDwZo29880; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:58:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SDtgo29803 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:55:42 -0400 Received: from m1.cs.man.ac.uk (m1.cs.man.ac.uk [130.88.192.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00104 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eng002.cs.man.ac.uk by m1.cs.man.ac.uk (8.8.8/AL/MJK-2.0) id OAA24789; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:55:37 +0100 (BST) Received: (from tapselj0@localhost) by eng002.cs.man.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g7SDtmD04037 for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:55:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:55:48 +0100 From: John Tapsell <tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <20020828145548.A4031@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207091153110.9049-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu>; from kanodia@rice.edu on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:43:44AM -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g7SDtgo29804 Subject: [manet] RSVP Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hey, Sorry to always be the one to ask dumb questions... I'm trying to setup rsvp so that I can have a play with it. I followed http://dsmpls.atlantis.rug.ac.be/files/installation_rsvpd-0.60.txt exactly (except I used redhat 7.2 instead 7.0, and used linux-2.4.18 instead of .17) and everything seemed to go smoothly (I had to tweak the kernel patch a tiny bit). I'm now wondering 'now what?'. I ran "rsvpd -D" which complained that three interfaces I have chosen in /etc/label.conf (eth0, dummy0, and dummy1) didn't support CBQ (I have compiled in kernel support) but seemed to work otherwise. I ran ethereal, and ran rtest between the dummy devices, but ethereal didn't pick up the packets, but rstat showed the connection (but said I had reservered no QoS for the connection) I tried rtest between my eth0 and some fictious network address, and ethereal saw the PATH and TEAR messages. I'm now wondering how to test it better, just to have a play. Can anyone help? Thanks JohnFlux _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 10:22:20 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01363 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:22:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SENLv31578 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:23:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SENLo31575 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:23:21 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01345 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:21:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SELUo31443; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:21:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SEK6o31366 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:20:06 -0400 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01220 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA11395 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2002082810193221532 ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:19:32 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20020828101856.02a4a9f8@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:19:32 -0400 To: John Tapsell <tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk>, manet@ietf.org From: Joe Macker <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Subject: Re: [manet] RSVP In-Reply-To: <20020828145548.A4031@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207091153110.9049-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Please use an RSVP related mailing list... _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 10:22:41 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01392 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:22:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SELUo31443; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:21:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SEK6o31366 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:20:06 -0400 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01220 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA11395 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2002082810193221532 ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:19:32 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20020828101856.02a4a9f8@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:19:32 -0400 To: John Tapsell <tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk>, manet@ietf.org From: Joe Macker <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Subject: Re: [manet] RSVP In-Reply-To: <20020828145548.A4031@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207091153110.9049-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Please use an RSVP related mailing list... _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 10:24:40 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01494 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SEPgZ31710 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:25:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SEPgo31707 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:25:42 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01481 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SEOAo31645; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:24:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SENgo31599 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:23:42 -0400 Received: from m1.cs.man.ac.uk (m1.cs.man.ac.uk [130.88.192.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01356 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eng002.cs.man.ac.uk by m1.cs.man.ac.uk (8.8.8/AL/MJK-2.0) id PAA25938; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:23:38 +0100 (BST) Received: (from tapselj0@localhost) by eng002.cs.man.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g7SENn404068 for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:23:49 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:23:49 +0100 From: John Tapsell <tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] RSVP Message-ID: <20020828152348.B4041@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207091153110.9049-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> <20020828145548.A4031@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> <5.1.1.5.2.20020828101856.02a4a9f8@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.5.2.20020828101856.02a4a9f8@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil>; from macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil on Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 10:19:32AM -0400 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> --rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 10:19:32AM -0400, Joe Macker wrote: > Please use an RSVP related mailing list... opps. Sorry.. JohnFlux =20 --=20 --rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9bNz0oRvfZQkd7qoRAoGtAJ9069lazoCP+YZQc5KRKmzXpbYq7QCfWJx4 mqHhKPEltPPFbJhj4inTeY0= =XgHQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 10:25:01 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01511 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:25:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SEOAo31645; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:24:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SENgo31599 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:23:42 -0400 Received: from m1.cs.man.ac.uk (m1.cs.man.ac.uk [130.88.192.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01356 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eng002.cs.man.ac.uk by m1.cs.man.ac.uk (8.8.8/AL/MJK-2.0) id PAA25938; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:23:38 +0100 (BST) Received: (from tapselj0@localhost) by eng002.cs.man.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g7SENn404068 for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:23:49 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:23:49 +0100 From: John Tapsell <tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] RSVP Message-ID: <20020828152348.B4041@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207091153110.9049-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> <20020828145548.A4031@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> <5.1.1.5.2.20020828101856.02a4a9f8@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.5.2.20020828101856.02a4a9f8@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil>; from macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil on Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 10:19:32AM -0400 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> --rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 10:19:32AM -0400, Joe Macker wrote: > Please use an RSVP related mailing list... opps. Sorry.. JohnFlux =20 --=20 --rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9bNz0oRvfZQkd7qoRAoGtAJ9069lazoCP+YZQc5KRKmzXpbYq7QCfWJx4 mqHhKPEltPPFbJhj4inTeY0= =XgHQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 10:57:09 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02850 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:57:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SEuao00913; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:56:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SEtso00874 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:55:54 -0400 Received: from amber.ccs.neu.edu (postfix@amber.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.116.51]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02760 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CASABLANCA.ccs.neu.edu (casablanca.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.118.188]) by amber.ccs.neu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD3C1AA29; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20020828103255.02b8d090@mail.ccs.neu.edu> X-Sender: noubir@mail.ccs.neu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:45:28 -0400 To: <manet@ietf.org>, <mobicom@acm.org>, <sigmob@acm.org> From: "G. Noubir" <noubir@ccs.neu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [manet] Wireless Security workshop -- advance registration deadline soon [August 31] Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Advance registration deadline soon (visit http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise for more information) --------------------------------------------------------------- Call for Participation ACM Workshop on Wireless Security (WiSe) in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002 September 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise Sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE A workshop on wireless security will be held in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002. The objective of this workshop is to bring together researchers from research communities in wireless networking, security, and dependability, with the goal of fostering interaction among them. With the increasing reliance on wireless networks, issues related to secure and dependable operation of such networks are gaining importance. For registration information, please visit http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise Preliminary Program -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 1 (8:30 - 10:00 a.m.) Session Chair: David B. Johnson (Rice University) Securing Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols, Manel Guerrero Zapata and N. Asokan (Nokia Research Center, Finland) Self-Organized Network Layer Security in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Hao Yang, Xiaoqiao Meng and Songwu Lu (University of California at Los Angeles) An On-Demand Secure Routing Protocol Resilent to Byzantine Failures, Baruch Awerbuch, David Holmer, Cristina Nita-Rotaru and Herbert Rubens (Johns Hopkins University) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Poster Session (10:15 - 11:15 a.m.) Self-Organized Public-Key Management in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, S. Capkun, L. Buttyan and J.-P. Hubaux (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne) Providing Multi-Layer Security Support for Wireless Communications Across Multiple Domains, J. Kong, M. Gerla, R. Gadh, B. S. Prahbu (University of California, Los Angeles) Reflection: Secure, Lightweight Wireless Network Administration, J. W. Mickens, B. D. Noble, A. J. Lanzone, K.-Y. Tye (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) Risk Based Probabilistic Routing for Ad-Hoc Networks, Z. Yu, T. Jiang, X. Wu and W. A. Arbaugh (University of Maryland, College Park) Performance Evaluation of Secure Routing for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, P. Papadimitratos and Z. J. Haas (Cornell University) Security Protocol for Charging and Participation Incentive in Ad Hoc Stub Network, B. Lamparter, K. Paul, D. Westhoff (NEC Europe Ltd.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Invited Presentations (11:15 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.) Session Chair: Brian Van Leeuwen (Sandia National Laboratories) Information Assurance and Research Opportunities, Douglas Maughan, Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency Perspectives on Wireless Security, Taieb Znati, National Science Foundation and University of Pittsburgh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 2 (1:30 - 3:00 p.m.) Session Chair: Chip Elliott (BBN Technologies) Survivable Mobile Wireless Networks: Issues, Challenges, and Research Directions, Rajesh Krishnan, Regina Rosales Hain, Alden W. Jackson, David Levin, Ram Ramanathan, John Zao and James P. G. Sterbenz (BBN Technologies) Secure Wireless Gateway, Austin Godber and Partha Dasgupta (Arizona State University) DoS and Authentication in Wireless Public Access Networks, Daniel B. Faria and David R. Cheriton (Stanford University) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 3 (3:30 - 5:30 p.m.) Session Chair: Yair Amir (Johns Hopkins University) A Distributed Monitoring Mechanism in Wireless Sensor Networks, Chih-fan Hsin and Mingyan Liu (University of Michigan at Ann Arbor) Using Signal Processing to Analyze Wireless Data Traffic, Craig Partridge, David Cousins, Alden W. Jackson, Rajesh Krishnan, Tushar Saxena, and W. Timothy Strayer (BBN Technologies) Securing IPv6 Neighor Discovery, Jari Arkko (Ericsson Research NomadicLab), Tuomas Aura (Microsoft Research Cambridge), James Kempf (DoCoMoLabs U.S.A.), Vesa-Matti Mantyla, Pekka Nikander (Ericsson Research NomadicLab) and Michael Roe (Microsoft Research Cambridge) Performance Analysis of Elliptic Curve Cryptography for SSL, Vipul Gupta, Sumit Gupta, Sheueling Chang and Douglas Stebila (Sun Microsystems) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 11:06:09 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03227 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SF7CT01692 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:07:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SF7Co01689 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:07:12 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03204 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:05:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SEuao00913; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:56:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SEtso00874 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:55:54 -0400 Received: from amber.ccs.neu.edu (postfix@amber.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.116.51]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02760 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CASABLANCA.ccs.neu.edu (casablanca.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.118.188]) by amber.ccs.neu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD3C1AA29; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20020828103255.02b8d090@mail.ccs.neu.edu> X-Sender: noubir@mail.ccs.neu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:45:28 -0400 To: <manet@ietf.org>, <mobicom@acm.org>, <sigmob@acm.org> From: "G. Noubir" <noubir@ccs.neu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [manet] Wireless Security workshop -- advance registration deadline soon [August 31] Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Advance registration deadline soon (visit http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise for more information) --------------------------------------------------------------- Call for Participation ACM Workshop on Wireless Security (WiSe) in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002 September 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise Sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE A workshop on wireless security will be held in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002. The objective of this workshop is to bring together researchers from research communities in wireless networking, security, and dependability, with the goal of fostering interaction among them. With the increasing reliance on wireless networks, issues related to secure and dependable operation of such networks are gaining importance. For registration information, please visit http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv/wise Preliminary Program -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 1 (8:30 - 10:00 a.m.) Session Chair: David B. Johnson (Rice University) Securing Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols, Manel Guerrero Zapata and N. Asokan (Nokia Research Center, Finland) Self-Organized Network Layer Security in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Hao Yang, Xiaoqiao Meng and Songwu Lu (University of California at Los Angeles) An On-Demand Secure Routing Protocol Resilent to Byzantine Failures, Baruch Awerbuch, David Holmer, Cristina Nita-Rotaru and Herbert Rubens (Johns Hopkins University) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Poster Session (10:15 - 11:15 a.m.) Self-Organized Public-Key Management in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, S. Capkun, L. Buttyan and J.-P. Hubaux (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne) Providing Multi-Layer Security Support for Wireless Communications Across Multiple Domains, J. Kong, M. Gerla, R. Gadh, B. S. Prahbu (University of California, Los Angeles) Reflection: Secure, Lightweight Wireless Network Administration, J. W. Mickens, B. D. Noble, A. J. Lanzone, K.-Y. Tye (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) Risk Based Probabilistic Routing for Ad-Hoc Networks, Z. Yu, T. Jiang, X. Wu and W. A. Arbaugh (University of Maryland, College Park) Performance Evaluation of Secure Routing for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, P. Papadimitratos and Z. J. Haas (Cornell University) Security Protocol for Charging and Participation Incentive in Ad Hoc Stub Network, B. Lamparter, K. Paul, D. Westhoff (NEC Europe Ltd.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Invited Presentations (11:15 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.) Session Chair: Brian Van Leeuwen (Sandia National Laboratories) Information Assurance and Research Opportunities, Douglas Maughan, Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency Perspectives on Wireless Security, Taieb Znati, National Science Foundation and University of Pittsburgh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 2 (1:30 - 3:00 p.m.) Session Chair: Chip Elliott (BBN Technologies) Survivable Mobile Wireless Networks: Issues, Challenges, and Research Directions, Rajesh Krishnan, Regina Rosales Hain, Alden W. Jackson, David Levin, Ram Ramanathan, John Zao and James P. G. Sterbenz (BBN Technologies) Secure Wireless Gateway, Austin Godber and Partha Dasgupta (Arizona State University) DoS and Authentication in Wireless Public Access Networks, Daniel B. Faria and David R. Cheriton (Stanford University) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Session 3 (3:30 - 5:30 p.m.) Session Chair: Yair Amir (Johns Hopkins University) A Distributed Monitoring Mechanism in Wireless Sensor Networks, Chih-fan Hsin and Mingyan Liu (University of Michigan at Ann Arbor) Using Signal Processing to Analyze Wireless Data Traffic, Craig Partridge, David Cousins, Alden W. Jackson, Rajesh Krishnan, Tushar Saxena, and W. Timothy Strayer (BBN Technologies) Securing IPv6 Neighor Discovery, Jari Arkko (Ericsson Research NomadicLab), Tuomas Aura (Microsoft Research Cambridge), James Kempf (DoCoMoLabs U.S.A.), Vesa-Matti Mantyla, Pekka Nikander (Ericsson Research NomadicLab) and Michael Roe (Microsoft Research Cambridge) Performance Analysis of Elliptic Curve Cryptography for SSL, Vipul Gupta, Sumit Gupta, Sheueling Chang and Douglas Stebila (Sun Microsystems) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:25:22 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10223 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:25:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHOOo09913; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:24:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7NNPjo01500 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:25:45 -0400 Received: from cwc.ucsd.edu (cwc.ucsd.edu [132.239.228.42]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20075 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:24:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cwc.ucsd.edu (cts4.ucsd.edu [132.239.134.16]) by cwc.ucsd.edu (8.12.1/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7NN7OVk013506; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D66C070.EDEA41D0@cwc.ucsd.edu> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:08:32 -0700 From: Michele Zorzi <zorzi@cwc.ucsd.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: mobihoc@ee.ucla.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] MobiHoc 2003 - Call for Papers Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (we apologize for possible multiple copies of this message) CALL FOR PAPERS The ACM Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking & Computing MobiHoc 2003 http://mobihoc.ee.ucla.edu June 1-3, 2003 Annapolis, Maryland, USA MobiHoc 2003 is the fourth of a series of annual meetings sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE, focusing on the latest research in the rapidly growing area of mobile ad hoc networking and computing. The first MobiHoc was held in 2000 in Boston, Massachusetts, as a workshop affiliated with the MobiCom conference also sponsored by SIGMOBILE. Since then, MobiHoc has become a separate symposium, held in 2001 at Long Beach, California, in 2002 at Lausanne, Switzerland, and now in 2003 at Annapolis, Maryland. Papers: Technical papers describing original, previously unpublished research, not currently under review by another conference or journal, are solicited. In general this symposium is interested in papers that address networking or computing problems in the context of mobile and wireless ad hoc networks, ad hoc computing systems, and sensor networks, with the focus being on issues above the physical layer. Specific topics of interest include the following: * Routing protocols (unicast, multicast, geocast, content-based etc.) * Media access techniques * Transport-layer issues * Hardware and software platforms, systems, and test beds * Applications for ad hoc networks * Power-aware, low-power, and energy-efficient designs * Quality-of-service issues * Security and fault tolerance issues * Self-configuration in ad hoc networks * Processing and fusion of data in sensor networks * Location discovery and management * Timing synchronization * Distributed algorithms for ad hoc networks * Biologically inspired mechanisms * Ad hoc networks of autonomous intelligent systems * Analytic methods and modeling for performance evaluation * Cross-layer interactions, including between higher and physical layers * Other ad hoc networking and computing topics above the physical layer Please consult the program co-chairs Anthony Ephremides <tony@isr.umd.edu> and Mani Srivastava <mbs@ee.ucla.edu> if you are uncertain whether your paper falls within the scope of the symposium. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: All submissions will be handled electronically and must be in PDF or PostScript format. Papers must not exceed 15 pages (US "Letter" size, 8.5 x 11 inches) including text, figures and references. The font size must be at least 10 points. Accepted papers will be published in the symposium proceedings. We will adopt a double-blind process for paper review, where the identities of the authors are withheld from the reviewers. Authors' names and their affiliations must not be revealed or mentioned anywhere in the paper or in the postscript or PDF file. Submitted papers should be unpublished and not currently under review for any other conference or journal. Papers not following these guidelines will be summarily rejected. To submit a paper, please refer to the paper submission link at the conference website, http://mobihoc.ee.ucla.edu. Questions about the submission process should be directed to the Program Co-Chairs. TUTORIALS Proposals for tutorials are solicited. Evaluation of proposals will be based on the expertise and experience of the instructors, and on the relevance of the subject matter for the symposium. Potential instructors are requested to submit a tutorial proposal of at most 5 pages, including a biographical sketch, to the Tutorial Co-Chairs, Edward Knightly <knightly@ece.rice.edu> and Magda El Zarki<elzarki@uci.edu>, by the paper submission deadline below. IMPORTANT DATES Paper Submission Deadline December 2, 2002 Notification of Acceptance February 17, 2003 Camera-ready version Due March 15, 2003 Please visit the MobiHoc 2003 Home Page at http://mobihoc.ee.ucla.edu, or send email to the General Chair, Mario Gerla (gerla@cs.ucla.edu), or to the organizing committee (mobihoc@ee.ucla.edu) for any questions or for more information about the symposium. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:25:30 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10239 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:25:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SHQXq10134 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:26:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHQXo10131 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:26:33 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10202 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHOlo09957; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:24:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R4O2o08072 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:24:02 -0400 Received: from Greenhouse.cs.UGA.edu (greenhouse.cs.uga.edu [128.192.158.206]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01354 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by Greenhouse.cs.UGA.edu (Postfix, from userid 5028) id 21354238F3; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:23:50 -0400 (EDT) To: manet@ietf.org Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: wsna02@greenhouse.cs.uga.edu Precedence: bulk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020827042350.21354238F3@Greenhouse.cs.UGA.edu> From: wsna02@greenhouse.cs.uga.edu (Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] **Early registration deadline extended** - Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ========================================================================== CALL FOR PARTICIPATION ACM MobiCom 2002 Workshop ACM WSNA 2002 First ACM International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002 Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Saturday, September 28, 2002 Sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE URLs: http://wsna02.cs.uga.edu http://www.acm.org/sigmobile/mobicom/2002/ for MobiCom 2002 Early Registration Deadline: August 31, 2002 Registation is available via the ACM MobiCom website For more information, please contact the Workshop Co-Chairs: Prof. Raghavendra (raghu@usc.edu) and Prof. Sivalingam (krishna@csee.umbc.edu) ========================================================================== Tentative Technical Program Saturday, September 28, 2002 8.15am: Welcome and Introduction, by General Co-Chairs 8.30am - 9.15am: Keynote Talk, TBA 9.15am - 9.30am: Break ========================================================================== Session 1: Transport and Routing Protocols Time: 9.30am -- 10.40am PSFQ: A Reliable Transport Protocol For Wireless Sensor Networks Chieh-Yih Wan, Columbia University Andrew Campbell, Columbia University Lakshman Krishnamurthy, Intel Labs Constrained Random Walks on Random Graphs: Routing Algorithms for Large Scale Wireless Sensor Networks Sergio Servetto, Cornell University Guillermo Barrenechea, EPFL, Zurich, Switzerland Rumor Routing Algorithm For Sensor Networks David Braginsky, University of California, Los Angeles Deborah Estrin, University of California, Los Angeles ========================================================================== Session 2: Network Provisioning Time: 11.00am -- 12.30pm A Coverage-Preserving Node Scheduling Scheme for Large Wireless Sensor Networks Di Tian, University of Ottawa Nicolas D. Georganas, University of Ottawa Sensor deployment strategy for target detection Thomas Clouqueur, University of Wisconsin-Madison Veradej Phipatanasuphorn, University of Wisconsin-Madison Parmesh Ramanathan, University of Wisconsin-Madison Kewal Saluja, University of Wisconsin-Madison Infrastructure Tradeoffs for Sensor Networks Sameer Tilak, Binghampton University Nael Abu-Ghazaleh, Binghampton University Wendi Heinzelman, University of Rochester Calibration as Parameter Estimation in Sensor Networks Kamin Whitehouse, University of California, Berkeley David Culler, University of California, Berkeley ========================================================================== LUNCH Break: 12.30pm -- 1.30pm ========================================================================== Session 3: Applications & OS Time: 1.30pm -- 3.00pm Smart-Tag Based Data Dissemination Allan Beaufour, University of Copenhagen Martin Leopold, University of Copenhagen Philippe Bonnet, University of Copenhagen GHT: A Geographic Hash Table for Data-Centric Storage in Sensornets Sylvia Ratnasamy, ICIR, University of California, Berkeley Brad Karp, ICSI Center for Internet Research Deborah Estrin, University of California, Los Angeles Ramesh Govindan, University of Southern California Scott Shenker, ICSI Center for Internet Research Li Yin, University of California, Berkeley Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring Alan Mainwaring, Intel Research Laboratory Joseph Polastre, University of California, Berkeley Robert Szewczyk, University of California, Berkeley David Culler, University of California, Berkeley Verification and Power Analysis of an Event-Based System (TinyOS) and Sensor Network with Hybrid Automata Sinem Coleri, University of California, Berkeley Mustafa Ergen, University of California, Berkeley ========================================================================== Coffee Break: 3.00pm -- 3.30pm ========================================================================== Session 4: Location Discovery & Network Management Time: 3.30pm -- 5.00pm A Directionality based Location Discovery Scheme for Wireless Sensor Networks Asis Nasipuri, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Kai Li, University of North Carolina at Charlotte The Bits and Flops of the n-hop Multilateration Primitive for Node Localization Problems Andreas Savvides, University of California, Los Angeles Heemin Park, University of California, Los Angeles Mani Srivastava, University of California, Los Angeles Efficient Tracing of Failed Nodes in Sensor Networks Jessica Staddon, Palo Alto Research Center Dirk Balfanz, Palo Alto Research Center Glenn Durfee, Palo Alto Research Center A Dual-Space Approach to Tracking and Sensor Management in Wireless Sensor Networks Jie Liu, Palo Alto Research Center Patrick Cheung, Palo Alto Research Center Leonidas Guibas, Stanford University Feng Zhao, Palo Alto Research Center ================= THE END ================================================ _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:25:32 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10253 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:25:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SHQZb10149 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:26:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHQYo10146 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:26:34 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10205 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:25:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHOqo09984; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:24:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9XQo30146 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:33:26 -0400 Received: from mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16080 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D6246E8002BA07F for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:32:55 +0200 Received: from Cthulhu (80.13.43.136) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D49FF79008C9034 for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:32:55 +0200 Received: from [134.214.144.147] (helo=inria.fr) by claude.homeip.net [Cthulhu] ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:32:53 +0200 Message-ID: <3D6B470C.7000806@inria.fr> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:31:56 +0200 From: Eric Fleury <Eric.Fleury@inria.fr> Organization: CITI - INRIA User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020405 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org References: <200204261557.g3QFvLc07549@ares-fleury-1.insa-lyon.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] Call for Participation, DIALM 2002 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please could you broadcast this message. Please Accept Our Sincere Apologies Should you Receive Multiple Copies of this CFP ----------------------------------------------------------------------- _____________________________ C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N ----------------------------- DIAL M for Mobility ___________________ 6th International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications September, 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, USA (In conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002) Sponsored by ACM Sigmobile http://dialm.insa-lyon.fr/ SCOPE Mobile computing and communications such as portable phones and Personal Digital Assistants will have an enormous impact on all of us over the next several decades. The introduction of mobility raises a number of new research questions. For many of them, approaches based on the continuous case are not satisfactory, and discrete models and algorithms are required in order to deal with real applications. The workshop DIAL M for Mobility is devoted to discrete algorithms and discrete modelling in the context of mobile and wireless computing and communications. It is intended to be a lively meeting, covering many of the algorithmic and discrete aspects of this field going from operations research to radio engineering problems. It aims, in particular, at fostering the cooperation among practitioners and theoreticians of the field. Following the success the first workshop held jointly with Mobicom 97 in Budapest, DIAL M for Mobility will be co-located with ACM/IEEE MobiCom 98 and will be composed of contributed and invited talks. FINANCIAL SUPPORT A limited support is available for students to attend the conference. Please send an email to one of the Program Chairs to obtain further information. We encourage the students to apply as soon as possible. TENTATIVE PROGRAM (The times might change slightly in order to coordinate with othe workshops) SESSION ONE 8.50-9.00 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 9.00-10.00 a.m. INVITED TALK: Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design: Recent Results and Future Directions Professor Joan Feigenbaum, Dept. Computer Science, Yale University. joint work with Dr. Scott Shenker, ACIRI Coffee Break 10.00 - 10.30 a.m. SESSION TWO 10.30-12.20 p.m. Title: Asymptotically Optimal Geometric Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing Author: Fabian Kuhn, Roger Wattenhofer, Aaron Zollinger Title: Cluster Based Routing Using a k-Tree Core Backbone for Mobile Ad hoc Networks Authors: Saurabh Srivastava, Ratan K. Ghosh Title: A Theoretical Study of Optimization Techniques USed in Resgistration Area Based Location Mangement: Models and Online Algorithms Authors: Sandeep Gupta, Goran Konjevod, Georgios Varsamopoulos. Title: Self-Stabilizing Mutual Exclusion Using Tokens in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Yu Chen, Jennifer L. Welch Lunch 12.20 - 1.30 p.m. SESSION THREE 1.40-2.40 p.m. INVITED TALK: Energy v/s Performance in Wireless Networks Professor Hari Balakrishnan Laboratory of Computer Science MIT Coffee Break 2.40-3.00 p.m. SESSION 3: 3.00-4.15 p.m. Title: Scalable Analysis and Design of Ad Hoc Networks via Random Graph Theory Authors: Andras Farago Title: Approximation Algorithms for the Mobile Piercing Set Problem with Applications to Clustering in Ad-hoc Networks Authors: Hai Huang, Andrea W. Richa, Michael Segal Title: Simple Heuristics and PTASs for Intersection Graphs in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Xiang-Yang Li, Yu Wang ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE CHAIRS �ric FLEURY CITI/INRIA Rh�ne-Alpes Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA de Lyon B�t. L�onard de Vinci - 21 av. Jean Capelle F-69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Work Phone: +33 472 434 421 Fax Number: +33 472 436 227 Email: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr Madhav MARATHE Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Work Phone: +1 505 667 8010 Fax Number: +1 505 665 6474 Email: marathe@lanl.gov TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE P. Agarwal, Duke University, USA A. Bar-Noy, CUNY -- Brooklyn College, USA P. Crescenzi, U. Firenze, Italia B. Ducourthial, UTC, France M. Gerla, UCLA, USA P. Jacquet, INRIA, France S. Krumke, ZIB Berlin, Germany J-Y. Leboudec, EPFL, Switzerland G. R. Mateus, UFMG, Brasil M. Morvan, ENS-Lyon, France S. Naor, Technion, Israel D. Peleg, Weizmann Institute, Israel C. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, USA A. Richa, ASU, USA B. Schieber, IBM Watson, USA M. Steenstrup, BBN, USA A. Srinivasan, University of Maryland, USA P. Widmayer, ETH Zurich, Switzerland STEERING COMMITTEE Ian Akyildiz, Georgia Tech, USA Maurizio Bonuccelli, University of Pisa, Italy Afonso Ferreira, CNRS - I3S - INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, France Errol Lloyd, University of Delaware, USA Arunabha Sen, Arizona State University, USA. -- Eric FLEURY e-mail: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr CITI - INRIA http: www.loria.fr/~fleury Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA-Lyon Tel: +33 472 436 421 B�t. L�onard de Vinci - 21, av.Jean Capelle Fax: +33 472 436 227 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Cel: +33 678 268 036 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:25:53 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10269 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHOlo09957; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:24:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R4O2o08072 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:24:02 -0400 Received: from Greenhouse.cs.UGA.edu (greenhouse.cs.uga.edu [128.192.158.206]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01354 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by Greenhouse.cs.UGA.edu (Postfix, from userid 5028) id 21354238F3; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:23:50 -0400 (EDT) To: manet@ietf.org Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: wsna02@greenhouse.cs.uga.edu Precedence: bulk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020827042350.21354238F3@Greenhouse.cs.UGA.edu> From: wsna02@greenhouse.cs.uga.edu (Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] **Early registration deadline extended** - Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ========================================================================== CALL FOR PARTICIPATION ACM MobiCom 2002 Workshop ACM WSNA 2002 First ACM International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002 Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Saturday, September 28, 2002 Sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE URLs: http://wsna02.cs.uga.edu http://www.acm.org/sigmobile/mobicom/2002/ for MobiCom 2002 Early Registration Deadline: August 31, 2002 Registation is available via the ACM MobiCom website For more information, please contact the Workshop Co-Chairs: Prof. Raghavendra (raghu@usc.edu) and Prof. Sivalingam (krishna@csee.umbc.edu) ========================================================================== Tentative Technical Program Saturday, September 28, 2002 8.15am: Welcome and Introduction, by General Co-Chairs 8.30am - 9.15am: Keynote Talk, TBA 9.15am - 9.30am: Break ========================================================================== Session 1: Transport and Routing Protocols Time: 9.30am -- 10.40am PSFQ: A Reliable Transport Protocol For Wireless Sensor Networks Chieh-Yih Wan, Columbia University Andrew Campbell, Columbia University Lakshman Krishnamurthy, Intel Labs Constrained Random Walks on Random Graphs: Routing Algorithms for Large Scale Wireless Sensor Networks Sergio Servetto, Cornell University Guillermo Barrenechea, EPFL, Zurich, Switzerland Rumor Routing Algorithm For Sensor Networks David Braginsky, University of California, Los Angeles Deborah Estrin, University of California, Los Angeles ========================================================================== Session 2: Network Provisioning Time: 11.00am -- 12.30pm A Coverage-Preserving Node Scheduling Scheme for Large Wireless Sensor Networks Di Tian, University of Ottawa Nicolas D. Georganas, University of Ottawa Sensor deployment strategy for target detection Thomas Clouqueur, University of Wisconsin-Madison Veradej Phipatanasuphorn, University of Wisconsin-Madison Parmesh Ramanathan, University of Wisconsin-Madison Kewal Saluja, University of Wisconsin-Madison Infrastructure Tradeoffs for Sensor Networks Sameer Tilak, Binghampton University Nael Abu-Ghazaleh, Binghampton University Wendi Heinzelman, University of Rochester Calibration as Parameter Estimation in Sensor Networks Kamin Whitehouse, University of California, Berkeley David Culler, University of California, Berkeley ========================================================================== LUNCH Break: 12.30pm -- 1.30pm ========================================================================== Session 3: Applications & OS Time: 1.30pm -- 3.00pm Smart-Tag Based Data Dissemination Allan Beaufour, University of Copenhagen Martin Leopold, University of Copenhagen Philippe Bonnet, University of Copenhagen GHT: A Geographic Hash Table for Data-Centric Storage in Sensornets Sylvia Ratnasamy, ICIR, University of California, Berkeley Brad Karp, ICSI Center for Internet Research Deborah Estrin, University of California, Los Angeles Ramesh Govindan, University of Southern California Scott Shenker, ICSI Center for Internet Research Li Yin, University of California, Berkeley Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring Alan Mainwaring, Intel Research Laboratory Joseph Polastre, University of California, Berkeley Robert Szewczyk, University of California, Berkeley David Culler, University of California, Berkeley Verification and Power Analysis of an Event-Based System (TinyOS) and Sensor Network with Hybrid Automata Sinem Coleri, University of California, Berkeley Mustafa Ergen, University of California, Berkeley ========================================================================== Coffee Break: 3.00pm -- 3.30pm ========================================================================== Session 4: Location Discovery & Network Management Time: 3.30pm -- 5.00pm A Directionality based Location Discovery Scheme for Wireless Sensor Networks Asis Nasipuri, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Kai Li, University of North Carolina at Charlotte The Bits and Flops of the n-hop Multilateration Primitive for Node Localization Problems Andreas Savvides, University of California, Los Angeles Heemin Park, University of California, Los Angeles Mani Srivastava, University of California, Los Angeles Efficient Tracing of Failed Nodes in Sensor Networks Jessica Staddon, Palo Alto Research Center Dirk Balfanz, Palo Alto Research Center Glenn Durfee, Palo Alto Research Center A Dual-Space Approach to Tracking and Sensor Management in Wireless Sensor Networks Jie Liu, Palo Alto Research Center Patrick Cheung, Palo Alto Research Center Leonidas Guibas, Stanford University Feng Zhao, Palo Alto Research Center ================= THE END ================================================ _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:25:55 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10282 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHOqo09984; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:24:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R9XQo30146 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:33:26 -0400 Received: from mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16080 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D6246E8002BA07F for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:32:55 +0200 Received: from Cthulhu (80.13.43.136) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D49FF79008C9034 for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:32:55 +0200 Received: from [134.214.144.147] (helo=inria.fr) by claude.homeip.net [Cthulhu] ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:32:53 +0200 Message-ID: <3D6B470C.7000806@inria.fr> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:31:56 +0200 From: Eric Fleury <Eric.Fleury@inria.fr> Organization: CITI - INRIA User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020405 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org References: <200204261557.g3QFvLc07549@ares-fleury-1.insa-lyon.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] Call for Participation, DIALM 2002 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please could you broadcast this message. Please Accept Our Sincere Apologies Should you Receive Multiple Copies of this CFP ----------------------------------------------------------------------- _____________________________ C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N ----------------------------- DIAL M for Mobility ___________________ 6th International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications September, 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, USA (In conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002) Sponsored by ACM Sigmobile http://dialm.insa-lyon.fr/ SCOPE Mobile computing and communications such as portable phones and Personal Digital Assistants will have an enormous impact on all of us over the next several decades. The introduction of mobility raises a number of new research questions. For many of them, approaches based on the continuous case are not satisfactory, and discrete models and algorithms are required in order to deal with real applications. The workshop DIAL M for Mobility is devoted to discrete algorithms and discrete modelling in the context of mobile and wireless computing and communications. It is intended to be a lively meeting, covering many of the algorithmic and discrete aspects of this field going from operations research to radio engineering problems. It aims, in particular, at fostering the cooperation among practitioners and theoreticians of the field. Following the success the first workshop held jointly with Mobicom 97 in Budapest, DIAL M for Mobility will be co-located with ACM/IEEE MobiCom 98 and will be composed of contributed and invited talks. FINANCIAL SUPPORT A limited support is available for students to attend the conference. Please send an email to one of the Program Chairs to obtain further information. We encourage the students to apply as soon as possible. TENTATIVE PROGRAM (The times might change slightly in order to coordinate with othe workshops) SESSION ONE 8.50-9.00 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 9.00-10.00 a.m. INVITED TALK: Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design: Recent Results and Future Directions Professor Joan Feigenbaum, Dept. Computer Science, Yale University. joint work with Dr. Scott Shenker, ACIRI Coffee Break 10.00 - 10.30 a.m. SESSION TWO 10.30-12.20 p.m. Title: Asymptotically Optimal Geometric Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing Author: Fabian Kuhn, Roger Wattenhofer, Aaron Zollinger Title: Cluster Based Routing Using a k-Tree Core Backbone for Mobile Ad hoc Networks Authors: Saurabh Srivastava, Ratan K. Ghosh Title: A Theoretical Study of Optimization Techniques USed in Resgistration Area Based Location Mangement: Models and Online Algorithms Authors: Sandeep Gupta, Goran Konjevod, Georgios Varsamopoulos. Title: Self-Stabilizing Mutual Exclusion Using Tokens in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Yu Chen, Jennifer L. Welch Lunch 12.20 - 1.30 p.m. SESSION THREE 1.40-2.40 p.m. INVITED TALK: Energy v/s Performance in Wireless Networks Professor Hari Balakrishnan Laboratory of Computer Science MIT Coffee Break 2.40-3.00 p.m. SESSION 3: 3.00-4.15 p.m. Title: Scalable Analysis and Design of Ad Hoc Networks via Random Graph Theory Authors: Andras Farago Title: Approximation Algorithms for the Mobile Piercing Set Problem with Applications to Clustering in Ad-hoc Networks Authors: Hai Huang, Andrea W. Richa, Michael Segal Title: Simple Heuristics and PTASs for Intersection Graphs in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Xiang-Yang Li, Yu Wang ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE CHAIRS �ric FLEURY CITI/INRIA Rh�ne-Alpes Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA de Lyon B�t. L�onard de Vinci - 21 av. Jean Capelle F-69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Work Phone: +33 472 434 421 Fax Number: +33 472 436 227 Email: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr Madhav MARATHE Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Work Phone: +1 505 667 8010 Fax Number: +1 505 665 6474 Email: marathe@lanl.gov TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE P. Agarwal, Duke University, USA A. Bar-Noy, CUNY -- Brooklyn College, USA P. Crescenzi, U. Firenze, Italia B. Ducourthial, UTC, France M. Gerla, UCLA, USA P. Jacquet, INRIA, France S. Krumke, ZIB Berlin, Germany J-Y. Leboudec, EPFL, Switzerland G. R. Mateus, UFMG, Brasil M. Morvan, ENS-Lyon, France S. Naor, Technion, Israel D. Peleg, Weizmann Institute, Israel C. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, USA A. Richa, ASU, USA B. Schieber, IBM Watson, USA M. Steenstrup, BBN, USA A. Srinivasan, University of Maryland, USA P. Widmayer, ETH Zurich, Switzerland STEERING COMMITTEE Ian Akyildiz, Georgia Tech, USA Maurizio Bonuccelli, University of Pisa, Italy Afonso Ferreira, CNRS - I3S - INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, France Errol Lloyd, University of Delaware, USA Arunabha Sen, Arizona State University, USA. -- Eric FLEURY e-mail: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr CITI - INRIA http: www.loria.fr/~fleury Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA-Lyon Tel: +33 472 436 421 B�t. L�onard de Vinci - 21, av.Jean Capelle Fax: +33 472 436 227 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Cel: +33 678 268 036 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:30:54 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10522 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHUBo10276; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:30:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MHBdo04617 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:11:39 -0400 Received: from WS0005.indiatimes.com ([203.199.93.15]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03006 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 192.168.57.15 (a2 [192.168.57.22]) by WS0005.indiatimes.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA20533 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:31:16 +0530 From: "surivs" <surivs@indiatimes.com> Message-Id: <200208221701.WAA20533@WS0005.indiatimes.com> To: <manet@ietf.org> Reply-To: "surivs"<surivs@indiatimes.com> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:40:46 +0530 X-URL: http://indiatimes.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MAILER_ATTACH_BOUNDARY1_200282242240461827946632" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [manet] neural networks for routing in manets Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> --=_MAILER_ATTACH_BOUNDARY1_200282242240461827946632 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii hi can neural networks be applied to find shortest path in manet routing? is anyone working on this or tried this? i want to test it in manets, does any1 have any suggestions ? thanks suri Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from http://www.planetm.co.in --=_MAILER_ATTACH_BOUNDARY1_200282242240461827946632 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <P>hi</P> <P>can neural networks be applied to find shortest path in manet routing?</P> <P>is anyone working on this or tried this? i want to test it in manets, does any1 have any suggestions ?</P> <P>thanks</P> <P>suri</P> <hr><font face="Arial" size="2"><b>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at </font><a href="http://email.indiatimes.com"><font face="Arial" size="2">http://email.indiatimes.com</font></a></b><br>Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from <A href="http://www.planetm.co.in">http://www.planetm.co.in</A> --=_MAILER_ATTACH_BOUNDARY1_200282242240461827946632-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:31:01 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10562 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:31:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHUGo10298; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:30:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R7v9o25742 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:57:09 -0400 Received: from sina.com (sina35-248.sina.com.cn [202.108.35.248] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA14628 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 23913 invoked by uid 99); 27 Aug 2002 07:55:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20020827075505.23912.qmail@sina.com> From: lining_nj <lining_nj@sina.com> To: manet@ietf.org Cc: lining_nj@sina.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:55:04 +0800 X-Mailer: SinaMail 3.0Beta (FireToad) X-Priority: 3 Subject: [manet] why cs_thresh is 10dB lower than rx_thre Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hello everybody, In GloMoSim & NS, the default carrier sensing threshold is both 10dB lower than receiving threshold. But in my simulation(use GloMoSim), there are 100 stationary nodes randomly distribute in a 1000m*1000m terrain. There are 100 1-hop flows, I use 802.11 MAC protocol, RX-SNR-THRESHOLD is set to be 6dB,RADIO-TX-POWER 24.5dBm,RADIO-RX-THRESHOLD -64.0dBm.I use different RADIO-RX-SENSITIVITY from -78.0dBm to -64dBm. The results show that, the higher the carrier sensing threshold, the bigger the total network throughput. If the results are correct, I wonder why the carrier sensing threshold is usually set 10dB or more lower than receiving threshold? Are there any hardware related resons? Thanks in advance Ning Li. ______________________________________ =================================================================== ��ѵ�� (http://mail.sina.com.cn) ��˷��Ϣ��г��һ�ߣ��ó��ʱ�ͳ��֣� (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/) ��ֻ��ͼƬ ÿ��Ĵλ��д� (http://sms.sina.com.cn/act/aug.html) 20��Ϻ��˧��ü��㿪ʼ��Ե�� (http://love.sina.com.cn/) _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:31:20 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10594 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:31:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHUKo10324; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:30:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RHhpo23327 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:43:51 -0400 Received: from io.irean.vt.edu (io.irean.vt.edu [128.173.52.32]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03451 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (mchristm@localhost) by io.irean.vt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RHhGR00537 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:43:16 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: io.irean.vt.edu: mchristm owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:43:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Christman <mchristm@vt.edu> X-X-Sender: mchristm@io.irean.vt.edu To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208271330510.443-100000@io.irean.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] New Approach to Multicast Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hello all, I just wanted to present a master's thesis on a new approach/algorithm to multicast in MANETs done at Virginia Tech. This approach attempts to create efficient multicast trees in order to reduce DATA overhead. That is, we try to reduce the number of redundent data rebroadcasts in the multicast tree. The protocol is called XMMAN: Extensions for Multicast in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks, and the link to the entire document is http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08142002-131727/ For those who are interested, the Protocol section reads like anan Internet Draft. A protoype implementation (not a simulation) was developed to test the protocol and MAY be available for release. I have included the Abstract in the body of this message. Thanks for your interest! Mike Christman ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Extensions for Multicast in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (XMMAN): The Reduction of Data Overhead in Wireless Multicast Trees Michael Edward Christman Dr. Scott F. Midkiff, Chair Electrical Engineering (ABSTRACT) Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) routing protocols are designed to provide connectivity between wireless mobile nodes that do not have access to high-speed backbone networks. While many unicast MANET protocols have been explored, research involving multicast protocols has been limited. Existing multicast algorithms attempt to reduce routing overhead, but few, if any, attempt to reduce data overhead. The broadcast nature of wireless communication creates a unique environment in which overlaps in coverage are common. When designed properly, a multicast algorithm can take advantage of these overlaps and reduce data overhead. Unlike a unicast route, in which there is one path between a sender and receiver, a multicast tree can have multiple branches between the sender and its multiple receivers. Some of these paths can be combined to reduce redundant data rebroadcasts. The extensions presented in this thesis are a combination of existing and original routing techniques that were designed to reduce data rebroadcasts by aggregating multicast data flows. One such optimization takes advantage of the multipoint relay (MPR) nodes used by the Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) unicast protocol. These nodes are used in unicast routing to reduce network broadcast, but can be used to help create efficient multicast data flows. Additionally, by listening to routing messages meant for other nodes, a host can learn a bit about its network and may be able to make routing changes that improve the multicast tree. This protocol was implemented as a software router in Linux. It should be emphasized that this is a real implementation and not a simulation. Experiments showed that the number of data packets in the network could be reduced by as much as 19 percent. These improvements were accomplished while using only a small amount of routing overhead. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:36:36 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10801 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:36:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SHbdH11272 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:37:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHbdo11267 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:37:39 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10775 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:36:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHUBo10276; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:30:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MHBdo04617 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:11:39 -0400 Received: from WS0005.indiatimes.com ([203.199.93.15]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03006 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 192.168.57.15 (a2 [192.168.57.22]) by WS0005.indiatimes.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA20533 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:31:16 +0530 From: "surivs" <surivs@indiatimes.com> Message-Id: <200208221701.WAA20533@WS0005.indiatimes.com> To: <manet@ietf.org> Reply-To: "surivs"<surivs@indiatimes.com> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:40:46 +0530 X-URL: http://indiatimes.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MAILER_ATTACH_BOUNDARY1_200282242240461827946632" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [manet] neural networks for routing in manets Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> --=_MAILER_ATTACH_BOUNDARY1_200282242240461827946632 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii hi can neural networks be applied to find shortest path in manet routing? is anyone working on this or tried this? i want to test it in manets, does any1 have any suggestions ? thanks suri Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from http://www.planetm.co.in --=_MAILER_ATTACH_BOUNDARY1_200282242240461827946632 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <P>hi</P> <P>can neural networks be applied to find shortest path in manet routing?</P> <P>is anyone working on this or tried this? i want to test it in manets, does any1 have any suggestions ?</P> <P>thanks</P> <P>suri</P> <hr><font face="Arial" size="2"><b>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at </font><a href="http://email.indiatimes.com"><font face="Arial" size="2">http://email.indiatimes.com</font></a></b><br>Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from <A href="http://www.planetm.co.in">http://www.planetm.co.in</A> --=_MAILER_ATTACH_BOUNDARY1_200282242240461827946632-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:38:05 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10876 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SHd7A11339 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:39:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHd7o11336 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:39:07 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10847 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHUKo10324; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:30:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RHhpo23327 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:43:51 -0400 Received: from io.irean.vt.edu (io.irean.vt.edu [128.173.52.32]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03451 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (mchristm@localhost) by io.irean.vt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RHhGR00537 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:43:16 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: io.irean.vt.edu: mchristm owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:43:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Christman <mchristm@vt.edu> X-X-Sender: mchristm@io.irean.vt.edu To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208271330510.443-100000@io.irean.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] New Approach to Multicast Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hello all, I just wanted to present a master's thesis on a new approach/algorithm to multicast in MANETs done at Virginia Tech. This approach attempts to create efficient multicast trees in order to reduce DATA overhead. That is, we try to reduce the number of redundent data rebroadcasts in the multicast tree. The protocol is called XMMAN: Extensions for Multicast in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks, and the link to the entire document is http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08142002-131727/ For those who are interested, the Protocol section reads like anan Internet Draft. A protoype implementation (not a simulation) was developed to test the protocol and MAY be available for release. I have included the Abstract in the body of this message. Thanks for your interest! Mike Christman ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Extensions for Multicast in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (XMMAN): The Reduction of Data Overhead in Wireless Multicast Trees Michael Edward Christman Dr. Scott F. Midkiff, Chair Electrical Engineering (ABSTRACT) Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) routing protocols are designed to provide connectivity between wireless mobile nodes that do not have access to high-speed backbone networks. While many unicast MANET protocols have been explored, research involving multicast protocols has been limited. Existing multicast algorithms attempt to reduce routing overhead, but few, if any, attempt to reduce data overhead. The broadcast nature of wireless communication creates a unique environment in which overlaps in coverage are common. When designed properly, a multicast algorithm can take advantage of these overlaps and reduce data overhead. Unlike a unicast route, in which there is one path between a sender and receiver, a multicast tree can have multiple branches between the sender and its multiple receivers. Some of these paths can be combined to reduce redundant data rebroadcasts. The extensions presented in this thesis are a combination of existing and original routing techniques that were designed to reduce data rebroadcasts by aggregating multicast data flows. One such optimization takes advantage of the multipoint relay (MPR) nodes used by the Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) unicast protocol. These nodes are used in unicast routing to reduce network broadcast, but can be used to help create efficient multicast data flows. Additionally, by listening to routing messages meant for other nodes, a host can learn a bit about its network and may be able to make routing changes that improve the multicast tree. This protocol was implemented as a software router in Linux. It should be emphasized that this is a real implementation and not a simulation. Experiments showed that the number of data packets in the network could be reduced by as much as 19 percent. These improvements were accomplished while using only a small amount of routing overhead. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:39:33 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10976 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SHea011466 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:40:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHeao11463 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:40:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10914 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:39:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHUGo10298; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:30:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7R7v9o25742 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:57:09 -0400 Received: from sina.com (sina35-248.sina.com.cn [202.108.35.248] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA14628 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 23913 invoked by uid 99); 27 Aug 2002 07:55:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20020827075505.23912.qmail@sina.com> From: lining_nj <lining_nj@sina.com> To: manet@ietf.org Cc: lining_nj@sina.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:55:04 +0800 X-Mailer: SinaMail 3.0Beta (FireToad) X-Priority: 3 Subject: [manet] why cs_thresh is 10dB lower than rx_thre Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hello everybody, In GloMoSim & NS, the default carrier sensing threshold is both 10dB lower than receiving threshold. But in my simulation(use GloMoSim), there are 100 stationary nodes randomly distribute in a 1000m*1000m terrain. There are 100 1-hop flows, I use 802.11 MAC protocol, RX-SNR-THRESHOLD is set to be 6dB,RADIO-TX-POWER 24.5dBm,RADIO-RX-THRESHOLD -64.0dBm.I use different RADIO-RX-SENSITIVITY from -78.0dBm to -64dBm. The results show that, the higher the carrier sensing threshold, the bigger the total network throughput. If the results are correct, I wonder why the carrier sensing threshold is usually set 10dB or more lower than receiving threshold? Are there any hardware related resons? Thanks in advance Ning Li. ______________________________________ =================================================================== ��ѵ�� (http://mail.sina.com.cn) ��˷��Ϣ��г��һ�ߣ��ó��ʱ�ͳ��֣� (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/) ��ֻ��ͼƬ ÿ��Ĵλ��д� (http://sms.sina.com.cn/act/aug.html) 20��Ϻ��˧��ü��㿪ʼ��Ե�� (http://love.sina.com.cn/) _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 13:42:01 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11112 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SHh3I11579 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:43:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHh3o11576 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:43:03 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11062 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SHOOo09913; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:24:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7NNPjo01500 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:25:45 -0400 Received: from cwc.ucsd.edu (cwc.ucsd.edu [132.239.228.42]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20075 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:24:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cwc.ucsd.edu (cts4.ucsd.edu [132.239.134.16]) by cwc.ucsd.edu (8.12.1/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7NN7OVk013506; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D66C070.EDEA41D0@cwc.ucsd.edu> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:08:32 -0700 From: Michele Zorzi <zorzi@cwc.ucsd.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: mobihoc@ee.ucla.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] MobiHoc 2003 - Call for Papers Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (we apologize for possible multiple copies of this message) CALL FOR PAPERS The ACM Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking & Computing MobiHoc 2003 http://mobihoc.ee.ucla.edu June 1-3, 2003 Annapolis, Maryland, USA MobiHoc 2003 is the fourth of a series of annual meetings sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE, focusing on the latest research in the rapidly growing area of mobile ad hoc networking and computing. The first MobiHoc was held in 2000 in Boston, Massachusetts, as a workshop affiliated with the MobiCom conference also sponsored by SIGMOBILE. Since then, MobiHoc has become a separate symposium, held in 2001 at Long Beach, California, in 2002 at Lausanne, Switzerland, and now in 2003 at Annapolis, Maryland. Papers: Technical papers describing original, previously unpublished research, not currently under review by another conference or journal, are solicited. In general this symposium is interested in papers that address networking or computing problems in the context of mobile and wireless ad hoc networks, ad hoc computing systems, and sensor networks, with the focus being on issues above the physical layer. Specific topics of interest include the following: * Routing protocols (unicast, multicast, geocast, content-based etc.) * Media access techniques * Transport-layer issues * Hardware and software platforms, systems, and test beds * Applications for ad hoc networks * Power-aware, low-power, and energy-efficient designs * Quality-of-service issues * Security and fault tolerance issues * Self-configuration in ad hoc networks * Processing and fusion of data in sensor networks * Location discovery and management * Timing synchronization * Distributed algorithms for ad hoc networks * Biologically inspired mechanisms * Ad hoc networks of autonomous intelligent systems * Analytic methods and modeling for performance evaluation * Cross-layer interactions, including between higher and physical layers * Other ad hoc networking and computing topics above the physical layer Please consult the program co-chairs Anthony Ephremides <tony@isr.umd.edu> and Mani Srivastava <mbs@ee.ucla.edu> if you are uncertain whether your paper falls within the scope of the symposium. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: All submissions will be handled electronically and must be in PDF or PostScript format. Papers must not exceed 15 pages (US "Letter" size, 8.5 x 11 inches) including text, figures and references. The font size must be at least 10 points. Accepted papers will be published in the symposium proceedings. We will adopt a double-blind process for paper review, where the identities of the authors are withheld from the reviewers. Authors' names and their affiliations must not be revealed or mentioned anywhere in the paper or in the postscript or PDF file. Submitted papers should be unpublished and not currently under review for any other conference or journal. Papers not following these guidelines will be summarily rejected. To submit a paper, please refer to the paper submission link at the conference website, http://mobihoc.ee.ucla.edu. Questions about the submission process should be directed to the Program Co-Chairs. TUTORIALS Proposals for tutorials are solicited. Evaluation of proposals will be based on the expertise and experience of the instructors, and on the relevance of the subject matter for the symposium. Potential instructors are requested to submit a tutorial proposal of at most 5 pages, including a biographical sketch, to the Tutorial Co-Chairs, Edward Knightly <knightly@ece.rice.edu> and Magda El Zarki<elzarki@uci.edu>, by the paper submission deadline below. IMPORTANT DATES Paper Submission Deadline December 2, 2002 Notification of Acceptance February 17, 2003 Camera-ready version Due March 15, 2003 Please visit the MobiHoc 2003 Home Page at http://mobihoc.ee.ucla.edu, or send email to the General Chair, Mario Gerla (gerla@cs.ucla.edu), or to the organizing committee (mobihoc@ee.ucla.edu) for any questions or for more information about the symposium. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 14:16:24 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12689 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SIFXo13493; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:15:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SIEbo13453 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:14:37 -0400 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12531 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA23807 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2002082814135924058 ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:13:59 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20020828140932.02895758@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:14:03 -0400 To: "surivs"<surivs@indiatimes.com>, <manet@ietf.org> From: Joe Macker <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Subject: Re: [manet] neural networks for routing in manets In-Reply-To: <200208221701.WAA20533@WS0005.indiatimes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> At 10:40 PM 8/22/2002 +0530, surivs wrote: >hi > >can neural networks be applied to find shortest path in manet routing? > >is anyone working on this or tried this? i want to test it in manets, does any1 have any suggestions ? Yes, there has been much work done here. Check the literature it is extensive. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 14:22:45 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13055 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SINnr13831 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:23:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SINmo13827 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:23:48 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13033 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:22:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SIFXo13493; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:15:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SIEbo13453 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:14:37 -0400 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12531 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA23807 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2002082814135924058 ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:13:59 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20020828140932.02895758@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:14:03 -0400 To: "surivs"<surivs@indiatimes.com>, <manet@ietf.org> From: Joe Macker <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Subject: Re: [manet] neural networks for routing in manets In-Reply-To: <200208221701.WAA20533@WS0005.indiatimes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> At 10:40 PM 8/22/2002 +0530, surivs wrote: >hi > >can neural networks be applied to find shortest path in manet routing? > >is anyone working on this or tried this? i want to test it in manets, does any1 have any suggestions ? Yes, there has been much work done here. Check the literature it is extensive. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 14:53:47 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14034 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SIr4o15235; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:53:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SIp1o15172 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:51:01 -0400 Received: from lamu.ing.unibo.it (lamu.ing.unibo.it [137.204.58.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13940 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:49:26 -0400 (EDT) From: dbottazzi@deis.unibo.it Received: from ing.unibo.it (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lamu.ing.unibo.it (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g7SIop0s012610 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:50:51 +0200 (MEST) Message-Id: <200208281850.g7SIop0s012610@lamu.ing.unibo.it> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:50:51 -0000 To: <manet@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [manet] neural networks for routing in manets X-Mailer: TWIG 2.7.6 In-Reply-To: <200208221701.WAA20533@WS0005.indiatimes.com> Reply-To: dbottazzi@deis.unibo.it Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hi Surivs! I have a little experience in neural networks and I know that it is possible to use neural networks for finding the shortest path in a graph. Your approach seems really heavy weight to me and I fear you might find problems related to scalability... It should be necessary to investigate in deep how to model the topology of the network. You might work in a "ZRP fashion", this approach should reduce matrix' size... regards dario surivs <surivs@indiatimes.com> said: > hi > > > can neural networks be applied to find shortest path in manet routing? > > > is anyone working on this or tried this? i want to test it in manets, does any1 have any suggestions ? > > > thanks > > > suri > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com > Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from http://www.planetm.co.in > -- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 15:00:51 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14344 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:00:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SJ1tM15641 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:01:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SJ1to15638 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:01:55 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14321 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:00:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SIr4o15235; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:53:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SIp1o15172 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:51:01 -0400 Received: from lamu.ing.unibo.it (lamu.ing.unibo.it [137.204.58.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13940 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:49:26 -0400 (EDT) From: dbottazzi@deis.unibo.it Received: from ing.unibo.it (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lamu.ing.unibo.it (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g7SIop0s012610 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:50:51 +0200 (MEST) Message-Id: <200208281850.g7SIop0s012610@lamu.ing.unibo.it> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:50:51 -0000 To: <manet@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [manet] neural networks for routing in manets X-Mailer: TWIG 2.7.6 In-Reply-To: <200208221701.WAA20533@WS0005.indiatimes.com> Reply-To: dbottazzi@deis.unibo.it Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hi Surivs! I have a little experience in neural networks and I know that it is possible to use neural networks for finding the shortest path in a graph. Your approach seems really heavy weight to me and I fear you might find problems related to scalability... It should be necessary to investigate in deep how to model the topology of the network. You might work in a "ZRP fashion", this approach should reduce matrix' size... regards dario surivs <surivs@indiatimes.com> said: > hi > > > can neural networks be applied to find shortest path in manet routing? > > > is anyone working on this or tried this? i want to test it in manets, does any1 have any suggestions ? > > > thanks > > > suri > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com > Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from http://www.planetm.co.in > -- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 16:33:18 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17590 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SKWdo19928; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:32:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SKTKo19833 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:29:20 -0400 Received: from cs.binghamton.edu (cs.binghamton.edu [128.226.123.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17398 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:27:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nael (helo=localhost) by cs.binghamton.edu with local-esmtp (Exim 4.02) id 17k9RA-0002h0-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:29:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:29:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Nael Abu-Ghazaleh <nael@cs.binghamton.edu> X-Sender: nael@opal To: lining_nj <lining_nj@sina.com> cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] why cs_thresh is 10dB lower than rx_thre In-Reply-To: <20020827075505.23912.qmail@sina.com> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0208281625020.10318-100000@opal> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g7SKTKo19834 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi-- RTS/CTS is not effective for nodes that are outside the reception range; these nodes can still generate enough power to interfere at the receiver. So, the carrier sense threshold is chosen to be low enough to prevent many (most?) of the nodes that are in interference range (but not in reception range) from interfering with an ongoing communication. Not a perfect solution. regards, -nael --- Dr. Nael Abu-Ghazaleh Assistant Professor -- CS Dept. State University of New York Binghamton, NY 13902--6000 (607) 777 4748 (Phone) (607) 777 4729 (Fax) nael@cs.binghamton.edu On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, lining_nj wrote: > Hello everybody, > In GloMoSim & NS, the default carrier sensing threshold is both 10dB lower than receiving threshold. But in my simulation(use GloMoSim), there are 100 stationary nodes randomly distribute in a 1000m*1000m terrain. There are 100 1-hop flows, I use 802.11 MAC protocol, RX-SNR-THRESHOLD is set to be 6dB,RADIO-TX-POWER 24.5dBm,RADIO-RX-THRESHOLD -64.0dBm.I use different RADIO-RX-SENSITIVITY from -78.0dBm to -64dBm. > The results show that, the higher the carrier sensing threshold, the bigger the total network throughput. > If the results are correct, I wonder why the carrier sensing threshold is usually set 10dB or more lower than receiving threshold? Are there any hardware related resons? > Thanks in advance > Ning Li. > > > ______________________________________ > > =================================================================== > ��ѵ�� (http://mail.sina.com.cn) > ��˷��Ϣ��г��һ�ߣ��ó��ʱ�ͳ��֣� (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/) > ��ֻ��ͼƬ ÿ��Ĵλ��д� (http://sms.sina.com.cn/act/aug.html) > 20��Ϻ��˧��ü��㿪ʼ��Ե�� (http://love.sina.com.cn/) > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 16:39:07 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17956 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SKeCs20664 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:40:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SKeBo20659 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:40:11 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17939 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SKWdo19928; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:32:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SKTKo19833 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:29:20 -0400 Received: from cs.binghamton.edu (cs.binghamton.edu [128.226.123.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17398 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:27:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nael (helo=localhost) by cs.binghamton.edu with local-esmtp (Exim 4.02) id 17k9RA-0002h0-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:29:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:29:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Nael Abu-Ghazaleh <nael@cs.binghamton.edu> X-Sender: nael@opal To: lining_nj <lining_nj@sina.com> cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] why cs_thresh is 10dB lower than rx_thre In-Reply-To: <20020827075505.23912.qmail@sina.com> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0208281625020.10318-100000@opal> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g7SKTKo19834 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi-- RTS/CTS is not effective for nodes that are outside the reception range; these nodes can still generate enough power to interfere at the receiver. So, the carrier sense threshold is chosen to be low enough to prevent many (most?) of the nodes that are in interference range (but not in reception range) from interfering with an ongoing communication. Not a perfect solution. regards, -nael --- Dr. Nael Abu-Ghazaleh Assistant Professor -- CS Dept. State University of New York Binghamton, NY 13902--6000 (607) 777 4748 (Phone) (607) 777 4729 (Fax) nael@cs.binghamton.edu On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, lining_nj wrote: > Hello everybody, > In GloMoSim & NS, the default carrier sensing threshold is both 10dB lower than receiving threshold. But in my simulation(use GloMoSim), there are 100 stationary nodes randomly distribute in a 1000m*1000m terrain. There are 100 1-hop flows, I use 802.11 MAC protocol, RX-SNR-THRESHOLD is set to be 6dB,RADIO-TX-POWER 24.5dBm,RADIO-RX-THRESHOLD -64.0dBm.I use different RADIO-RX-SENSITIVITY from -78.0dBm to -64dBm. > The results show that, the higher the carrier sensing threshold, the bigger the total network throughput. > If the results are correct, I wonder why the carrier sensing threshold is usually set 10dB or more lower than receiving threshold? Are there any hardware related resons? > Thanks in advance > Ning Li. > > > ______________________________________ > > =================================================================== > ��ѵ�� (http://mail.sina.com.cn) > ��˷��Ϣ��г��һ�ߣ��ó��ʱ�ͳ��֣� (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/) > ��ֻ��ͼƬ ÿ��Ĵλ��д� (http://sms.sina.com.cn/act/aug.html) > 20��Ϻ��˧��ü��㿪ʼ��Ե�� (http://love.sina.com.cn/) > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 16:51:53 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18604 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SKqwF21118 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:52:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SKqwo21115 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:52:58 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18589 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:51:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SKpGo21018; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:51:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SKovo20998 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:50:57 -0400 Received: from barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (barrichello.cs.ucr.edu [138.23.169.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18519 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E82AB599A4; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Mailbox-Line: From zye@cs.ucr.edu Wed Aug 28 13:50:45 2002 Received: from io.cs.ucr.edu (io.cs.ucr.edu [138.23.174.180]) by barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192D6AB571BB; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by io.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix, from userid 7296) id DE00F25907; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by io.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5031258ED; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Zhenqiang(Frank) Ye" <zye@cs.ucr.edu> To: lining_nj <lining_nj@sina.com> Cc: <manet@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [manet] why cs_thresh is 10dB lower than rx_thre In-Reply-To: <20020827075505.23912.qmail@sina.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208281349050.18282-100000@io.cs.ucr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,TO_LOCALPART_EQ_REAL,DOUBLE_CAPSWORD, SUPERLONG_LINE,MIME_EXCESSIVE_QP version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: * X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g7SKovo20999 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Ning Li: By increasing the carrier sensing threshold, you can decrease the interference range of a node, thus you can get some frequency reuse benefits. Frank On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, lining_nj wrote: > Hello everybody, > In GloMoSim & NS, the default carrier sensing threshold is both 10dB lower than receiving threshold. But in my simulation(use GloMoSim), there are 100 stationary nodes randomly distribute in a 1000m*1000m terrain. There are 100 1-hop flows, I use 802.11 MAC protocol, RX-SNR-THRESHOLD is set to be 6dB,RADIO-TX-POWER 24.5dBm,RADIO-RX-THRESHOLD -64.0dBm.I use different RADIO-RX-SENSITIVITY from -78.0dBm to -64dBm. > The results show that, the higher the carrier sensing threshold, the bigger the total network throughput. > If the results are correct, I wonder why the carrier sensing threshold is usually set 10dB or more lower than receiving threshold? Are there any hardware related resons? > Thanks in advance > Ning Li. > > > ______________________________________ > > =================================================================== > ��ѵ�� (http://mail.sina.com.cn) > ��˷��Ϣ��г��һ�ߣ��ó��ʱ�ͳ��֣� (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/) > ��ֻ��ͼƬ ÿ��Ĵλ��д� (http://sms.sina.com.cn/act/aug.html) > 20��Ϻ��˧��ü��㿪ʼ��Ե�� (http://love.sina.com.cn/) > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 16:52:19 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18623 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SKpGo21018; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:51:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SKovo20998 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:50:57 -0400 Received: from barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (barrichello.cs.ucr.edu [138.23.169.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18519 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E82AB599A4; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Mailbox-Line: From zye@cs.ucr.edu Wed Aug 28 13:50:45 2002 Received: from io.cs.ucr.edu (io.cs.ucr.edu [138.23.174.180]) by barrichello.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192D6AB571BB; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by io.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix, from userid 7296) id DE00F25907; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by io.cs.ucr.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5031258ED; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Zhenqiang(Frank) Ye" <zye@cs.ucr.edu> To: lining_nj <lining_nj@sina.com> Cc: <manet@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [manet] why cs_thresh is 10dB lower than rx_thre In-Reply-To: <20020827075505.23912.qmail@sina.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208281349050.18282-100000@io.cs.ucr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,TO_LOCALPART_EQ_REAL,DOUBLE_CAPSWORD, SUPERLONG_LINE,MIME_EXCESSIVE_QP version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: * X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g7SKovo20999 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Ning Li: By increasing the carrier sensing threshold, you can decrease the interference range of a node, thus you can get some frequency reuse benefits. Frank On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, lining_nj wrote: > Hello everybody, > In GloMoSim & NS, the default carrier sensing threshold is both 10dB lower than receiving threshold. But in my simulation(use GloMoSim), there are 100 stationary nodes randomly distribute in a 1000m*1000m terrain. There are 100 1-hop flows, I use 802.11 MAC protocol, RX-SNR-THRESHOLD is set to be 6dB,RADIO-TX-POWER 24.5dBm,RADIO-RX-THRESHOLD -64.0dBm.I use different RADIO-RX-SENSITIVITY from -78.0dBm to -64dBm. > The results show that, the higher the carrier sensing threshold, the bigger the total network throughput. > If the results are correct, I wonder why the carrier sensing threshold is usually set 10dB or more lower than receiving threshold? Are there any hardware related resons? > Thanks in advance > Ning Li. > > > ______________________________________ > > =================================================================== > ��ѵ�� (http://mail.sina.com.cn) > ��˷��Ϣ��г��һ�ߣ��ó��ʱ�ͳ��֣� (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/) > ��ֻ��ͼƬ ÿ��Ĵλ��д� (http://sms.sina.com.cn/act/aug.html) > 20��Ϻ��˧��ü��㿪ʼ��Ե�� (http://love.sina.com.cn/) > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Wed Aug 28 21:34:37 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26762 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:34:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T1Y4o03010; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:34:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T1VNo02883 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:31:23 -0400 Received: from realname ([203.254.224.24]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26657 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from custom-daemon.mailout1.samsung.com by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) id <0H1L00F010D8S9@mailout1.samsung.com> for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:34:20 +0900 (KST) Received: from ep_mmp2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with ESMTP id <0H1L00C520D7G5@mailout1.samsung.com> for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:34:20 +0900 (KST) Received: from zbin ([75.2.47.220]) by mmp2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with ESMTPA id <0H1L00L0F0DSM3@mmp2.samsung.com> for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:34:41 +0900 (KST) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:33:26 +0900 From: zb <zbin@samsung.com> To: manet@ietf.org Message-id: <003701c24efc$133ee7d0$dc2f024b@zbin> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207091153110.9049-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> <20020828145548.A4031@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [manet] how does 802.11b ad hoc mode work? Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, all, Maybe this is a dumb question. In the MANET simulation, the 802.11b is used as typical device. However, I cannot find file to describe how the ad hoc mode work? In the infrastrucure mode, there are there are 5 subchannels. The access point broadcast beacon very 2ms in one of them. Then, the mobile node can join and leave. However, in ad hoc mode, all the nodes are equal. Who will decide the working subband? Is there any beacon kind of signal or the two mobile node communicate each other directly? Can anyone show me any document about it? thanks in advanced. bin ************************************* Zhen Bin i-Networking lab, Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology, San14-1, NongSeo-ri, Kiheung-Eup, Yongin, Kyungki-do, 440600, Korea 82-31-2809569 (fax) 82-31-2809534 (o) 82-31-2122268 (h) ************************************* _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 21:40:28 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26901 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:40:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7T1fap03806 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:41:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T1fZo03803 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:41:35 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26883 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T1Y4o03010; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:34:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T1VNo02883 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:31:23 -0400 Received: from realname ([203.254.224.24]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26657 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from custom-daemon.mailout1.samsung.com by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) id <0H1L00F010D8S9@mailout1.samsung.com> for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:34:20 +0900 (KST) Received: from ep_mmp2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with ESMTP id <0H1L00C520D7G5@mailout1.samsung.com> for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:34:20 +0900 (KST) Received: from zbin ([75.2.47.220]) by mmp2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with ESMTPA id <0H1L00L0F0DSM3@mmp2.samsung.com> for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:34:41 +0900 (KST) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:33:26 +0900 From: zb <zbin@samsung.com> To: manet@ietf.org Message-id: <003701c24efc$133ee7d0$dc2f024b@zbin> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207091153110.9049-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> <20020828145548.A4031@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [manet] how does 802.11b ad hoc mode work? Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, all, Maybe this is a dumb question. In the MANET simulation, the 802.11b is used as typical device. However, I cannot find file to describe how the ad hoc mode work? In the infrastrucure mode, there are there are 5 subchannels. The access point broadcast beacon very 2ms in one of them. Then, the mobile node can join and leave. However, in ad hoc mode, all the nodes are equal. Who will decide the working subband? Is there any beacon kind of signal or the two mobile node communicate each other directly? Can anyone show me any document about it? thanks in advanced. bin ************************************* Zhen Bin i-Networking lab, Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology, San14-1, NongSeo-ri, Kiheung-Eup, Yongin, Kyungki-do, 440600, Korea 82-31-2809569 (fax) 82-31-2809534 (o) 82-31-2122268 (h) ************************************* _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 29 00:01:57 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00278 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T41Vo09709; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:01:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T3xno09644 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:59:49 -0400 Received: from che.onthejob.net (che.onthejob.net [63.146.38.195]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00217 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from dyoung@localhost) by che.onthejob.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02551 for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:59:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:59:09 -0500 From: David Young <dyoung@ojctech.com> To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] how does 802.11b ad hoc mode work? Message-ID: <20020828225909.A2451@che.onthejob.net> Reply-To: dyoung@pobox.com Mail-Followup-To: David Young <dyoung@che.onthejob.net>, manet@ietf.org References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207091153110.9049-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> <20020828145548.A4031@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> <003701c24efc$133ee7d0$dc2f024b@zbin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <003701c24efc$133ee7d0$dc2f024b@zbin>; from zbin@samsung.com on Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:33:26AM +0900 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> You can download the 1999 version of the 802.11 standard at ieee.org. That might sound old, but I don't think it is very badly out of date. It will answer your question. Dave On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:33:26AM +0900, zb wrote: > Hi, all, > > Maybe this is a dumb question. > In the MANET simulation, the 802.11b is used as typical device. However, I > cannot find file to describe how the ad hoc mode work? In the infrastrucure > mode, there are there are 5 subchannels. The access point broadcast beacon > very 2ms in one of them. Then, the mobile node can join and leave. However, > in ad hoc mode, all the nodes are equal. Who will decide the working > subband? Is there any beacon kind of signal or the two mobile node > communicate each other directly? Can anyone show me any document about it? > > thanks in advanced. > > bin > ************************************* > Zhen Bin > > i-Networking lab, > Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology, > San14-1, NongSeo-ri, Kiheung-Eup, > Yongin, Kyungki-do, 440600, Korea > > 82-31-2809569 (fax) > 82-31-2809534 (o) > 82-31-2122268 (h) > ************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet -- David Young OJC Technologies dyoung@ojctech.com Engineering from the Right Brain Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 00:04:45 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00433 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7T45sZ09838 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:05:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T45ro09833 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:05:53 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00406 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T41Vo09709; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:01:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T3xno09644 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:59:49 -0400 Received: from che.onthejob.net (che.onthejob.net [63.146.38.195]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00217 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from dyoung@localhost) by che.onthejob.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02551 for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:59:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:59:09 -0500 From: David Young <dyoung@ojctech.com> To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] how does 802.11b ad hoc mode work? Message-ID: <20020828225909.A2451@che.onthejob.net> Reply-To: dyoung@pobox.com Mail-Followup-To: David Young <dyoung@che.onthejob.net>, manet@ietf.org References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207091153110.9049-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207091041280.11575-100000@egress.ece.rice.edu> <20020828145548.A4031@eng002.cs.man.ac.uk> <003701c24efc$133ee7d0$dc2f024b@zbin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <003701c24efc$133ee7d0$dc2f024b@zbin>; from zbin@samsung.com on Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:33:26AM +0900 Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> You can download the 1999 version of the 802.11 standard at ieee.org. That might sound old, but I don't think it is very badly out of date. It will answer your question. Dave On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:33:26AM +0900, zb wrote: > Hi, all, > > Maybe this is a dumb question. > In the MANET simulation, the 802.11b is used as typical device. However, I > cannot find file to describe how the ad hoc mode work? In the infrastrucure > mode, there are there are 5 subchannels. The access point broadcast beacon > very 2ms in one of them. Then, the mobile node can join and leave. However, > in ad hoc mode, all the nodes are equal. Who will decide the working > subband? Is there any beacon kind of signal or the two mobile node > communicate each other directly? Can anyone show me any document about it? > > thanks in advanced. > > bin > ************************************* > Zhen Bin > > i-Networking lab, > Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology, > San14-1, NongSeo-ri, Kiheung-Eup, > Yongin, Kyungki-do, 440600, Korea > > 82-31-2809569 (fax) > 82-31-2809534 (o) > 82-31-2122268 (h) > ************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet -- David Young OJC Technologies dyoung@ojctech.com Engineering from the Right Brain Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 29 07:58:12 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17452 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TBteo07690; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:55:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TBnco07443 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:49:38 -0400 Received: from sina.com (sina35-238.sina.com.cn [202.108.35.238] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA16932 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 4311 invoked by uid 99); 29 Aug 2002 11:47:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20020829114743.4310.qmail@sina.com> From: wht_slh_bao <wht_slh_bao@sina.com> To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:47:43 +0800 X-Mailer: SinaMail 3.0Beta (FireToad) X-Priority: 3 Subject: [manet] send me manetlist Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> ______________________________________ =================================================================== ��ѵ�� (http://mail.sina.com.cn) ��˷��Ϣ��г��һ�ߣ��ó��ʱ�ͳ��֣� (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/) ��ֻ��ͼƬ ÿ��Ĵλ��д� (http://sms.sina.com.cn/act/aug.html) 20��Ϻ��˧��ü��㿪ʼ��Ե�� (http://love.sina.com.cn/) _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 08:02:49 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17636 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7TC3n008099 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:03:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TC3no08096 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:03:49 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17604 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TBteo07690; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:55:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TBnco07443 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:49:38 -0400 Received: from sina.com (sina35-238.sina.com.cn [202.108.35.238] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA16932 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 4311 invoked by uid 99); 29 Aug 2002 11:47:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20020829114743.4310.qmail@sina.com> From: wht_slh_bao <wht_slh_bao@sina.com> To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:47:43 +0800 X-Mailer: SinaMail 3.0Beta (FireToad) X-Priority: 3 Subject: [manet] send me manetlist Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> ______________________________________ =================================================================== ��ѵ�� (http://mail.sina.com.cn) ��˷��Ϣ��г��һ�ߣ��ó��ʱ�ͳ��֣� (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/) ��ֻ��ͼƬ ÿ��Ĵλ��д� (http://sms.sina.com.cn/act/aug.html) 20��Ϻ��˧��ü��㿪ʼ��Ե�� (http://love.sina.com.cn/) _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 29 16:05:54 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09219 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:05:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TK4Do03004; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:04:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TJwso02842 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:58:54 -0400 Received: from bos-gate2.raytheon.com (bos-gate2.raytheon.com [199.46.198.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08857 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:57:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ds02e00.directory.ray.com (ds02e00.directory.ray.com [147.25.130.245]) by bos-gate2.raytheon.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TJwnMs029574 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:58:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ds02e00.directory.ray.com (root@localhost) by ds02e00.directory.ray.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g7TJwlpH016429 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub.fal.us.ray.com (mailhub.fal.us.ray.com [147.18.176.59]) by ds02e00.directory.ray.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g7TJwiNN016391 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fcexchange.fal.us.ray.com (fcexchange.fal.us.ray.com [147.18.176.31]) by mailhub.fal.us.ray.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17081 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fcexchange.fal.us.ray.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <QZYFPPSL>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:56:56 -0400 Message-ID: <72F06A8F0165D611AD2A00508BCFF600042F416F@fcexchange.fal.us.ray.com> From: "Su, William" <wsu@raytheon.com> To: manet@ietf.org Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:56:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [manet] 802.11 Ad hoc start-up beacon Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hi, Does anyone knows where I can find good source to answer these questions? Couldn't seem to find them in the 802.11 spec (Part11:MAC-PHY Specification): 1. In ad-hoc (IBSS) mode, how do the stations find each other in multi-channel mode (if they are supported)? The spec says all stations generate beacons in random interval, but does not say if they do a full sweep scan across all the channels for beacons if they don't hear anything for a period of time. In some configuration menus for 802.11 device (e.g. D-Link cards) suggests that when turning on two ad-hoc mode stations they shouldn't be turned on together but should allow some time to pass before turning on the 2nd unit (otherwise 2 separate network could be formed). What's the reason for this? Why couldn't the station do a passive scan periodically to avoid this? 2. Does IBSS mode support probes? And are they used in the full sweep scan (if multiple channel mode is supported)? If so, how do stations coordinate who generate probe-response and who doesn't (so there is no flooding of replies)? 3. How does association work in IBSS mode? Does a station send association request to all the neighbors it hears on the beacons? Also, does 802.11 IBSS use ARP to get the neighbor's IP address? Does this process takes place in association or it is separate? Any information would be greatly appreciated, William _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 16:11:43 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09447 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7TKCmO03920 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:12:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TKCmo03917 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:12:48 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09409 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TK4Do03004; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:04:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TJwso02842 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:58:54 -0400 Received: from bos-gate2.raytheon.com (bos-gate2.raytheon.com [199.46.198.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08857 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:57:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ds02e00.directory.ray.com (ds02e00.directory.ray.com [147.25.130.245]) by bos-gate2.raytheon.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TJwnMs029574 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:58:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ds02e00.directory.ray.com (root@localhost) by ds02e00.directory.ray.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g7TJwlpH016429 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub.fal.us.ray.com (mailhub.fal.us.ray.com [147.18.176.59]) by ds02e00.directory.ray.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g7TJwiNN016391 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fcexchange.fal.us.ray.com (fcexchange.fal.us.ray.com [147.18.176.31]) by mailhub.fal.us.ray.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17081 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fcexchange.fal.us.ray.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <QZYFPPSL>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:56:56 -0400 Message-ID: <72F06A8F0165D611AD2A00508BCFF600042F416F@fcexchange.fal.us.ray.com> From: "Su, William" <wsu@raytheon.com> To: manet@ietf.org Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:56:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [manet] 802.11 Ad hoc start-up beacon Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Hi, Does anyone knows where I can find good source to answer these questions? Couldn't seem to find them in the 802.11 spec (Part11:MAC-PHY Specification): 1. In ad-hoc (IBSS) mode, how do the stations find each other in multi-channel mode (if they are supported)? The spec says all stations generate beacons in random interval, but does not say if they do a full sweep scan across all the channels for beacons if they don't hear anything for a period of time. In some configuration menus for 802.11 device (e.g. D-Link cards) suggests that when turning on two ad-hoc mode stations they shouldn't be turned on together but should allow some time to pass before turning on the 2nd unit (otherwise 2 separate network could be formed). What's the reason for this? Why couldn't the station do a passive scan periodically to avoid this? 2. Does IBSS mode support probes? And are they used in the full sweep scan (if multiple channel mode is supported)? If so, how do stations coordinate who generate probe-response and who doesn't (so there is no flooding of replies)? 3. How does association work in IBSS mode? Does a station send association request to all the neighbors it hears on the beacons? Also, does 802.11 IBSS use ARP to get the neighbor's IP address? Does this process takes place in association or it is separate? Any information would be greatly appreciated, William _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 22:18:41 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19083 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:18:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7U2Jng21381 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:19:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U2Jmo21378 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:19:48 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19064 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U2HZo21285; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:17:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U2Dfo21161 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:13:41 -0400 Received: from ebene.inrialpes.fr (ebene.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18844 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-serv.inrialpes.fr (pop-serv.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.66]) by ebene.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U298x08266; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:09:08 +0200 (MEST) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:09:08 +0200 (MEST) From: Imad AAD <Imad.Aad@inrialpes.fr> To: "Su, William" <wsu@raytheon.com> cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] 802.11 Ad hoc start-up beacon In-Reply-To: <72F06A8F0165D611AD2A00508BCFF600042F416F@fcexchange.fal.us.ray.com> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0208300407050.25791-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Su, William wrote: > 3. How does association work in IBSS mode? Does a station send association > request to all the neighbors it hears on the beacons? Also, does 802.11 > IBSS use ARP to get the neighbor's IP address? Does this process takes > place in association or it is separate? there is no association in IBSS mode. imad _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Thu Aug 29 22:19:06 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19119 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U2HZo21285; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:17:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U2Dfo21161 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:13:41 -0400 Received: from ebene.inrialpes.fr (ebene.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18844 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-serv.inrialpes.fr (pop-serv.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.66]) by ebene.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U298x08266; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:09:08 +0200 (MEST) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:09:08 +0200 (MEST) From: Imad AAD <Imad.Aad@inrialpes.fr> To: "Su, William" <wsu@raytheon.com> cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] 802.11 Ad hoc start-up beacon In-Reply-To: <72F06A8F0165D611AD2A00508BCFF600042F416F@fcexchange.fal.us.ray.com> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0208300407050.25791-100000@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Su, William wrote: > 3. How does association work in IBSS mode? Does a station send association > request to all the neighbors it hears on the beacons? Also, does 802.11 > IBSS use ARP to get the neighbor's IP address? Does this process takes > place in association or it is separate? there is no association in IBSS mode. imad _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Aug 30 04:51:37 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA07948 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7U8qmw17635 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:52:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U8qmo17632 for <manet-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:52:48 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA07934 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U8oco17495; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:50:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U8kIo17353 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:46:18 -0400 Received: from smtp.263.net ([211.157.130.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA07766 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.263.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 63AC21D640E48 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:34:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from �� (unknown [210.12.4.99]) by 192.168.30.29 (Coremail) with SMTP id ABoAABoubz0nHARj.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:34:48 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:43:41 +0800 From: "Harry" <hr_befine@263.net> To: MANET mail list <manet@ietf.org> X-mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020830083448.63AC21D640E48@smtp.263.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Help me! Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hi,everyone! I have had some trouble in receiving mails after upgrading. and i do check my option through http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet and ensure my "Disable mail delivery" is off. Yet I can not get any mails. Could u help me. thank u in advance. best regards Harry 2002-08-30 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-admin@ietf.org Fri Aug 30 04:51:59 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA07969 for <manet-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U8oco17495; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:50:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U8kIo17353 for <manet@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:46:18 -0400 Received: from smtp.263.net ([211.157.130.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA07766 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.263.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 63AC21D640E48 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:34:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from �� (unknown [210.12.4.99]) by 192.168.30.29 (Coremail) with SMTP id ABoAABoubz0nHARj.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:34:48 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:43:41 +0800 From: "Harry" <hr_befine@263.net> To: MANET mail list <manet@ietf.org> X-mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020830083448.63AC21D640E48@smtp.263.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Help me! Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org> List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hi,everyone! I have had some trouble in receiving mails after upgrading. and i do check my option through http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet and ensure my "Disable mail delivery" is off. Yet I can not get any mails. Could u help me. thank u in advance. best regards Harry 2002-08-30 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet