From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 2 09:29:47 2003 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 JAA05251 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h02Ec7G27306 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:38:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02Ec7J27303 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:38:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05235 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:29:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02ESCJ26068; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:28:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02ENnJ25847 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:23:49 -0500 Received: from sm.luth.se (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05041 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:14:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from dugdale.cdt.luth.se (dugdale.cdt.luth.se [130.240.64.172]) by sm.luth.se (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h02EI7aq003722; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:18:07 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:25:56 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Lindgren X-X-Sender: dugdale@dugdale.cdt.luth.se To: ayman ghazi cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] General questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030102151916.X40061-100000@dugdale.cdt.luth.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 www1.ietf.org id h02ENnJ25848 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ayman, We have developed ISAIAH, a slight modification of AODV that works in a scenario as the one you describe below (in our scenarios we do however also assume that the fixed nodes have better power supplies than the mobile nodes (they can e.g. be plugged into a power outlet)). We have a paper describing this protocol (BibTeX entry below), and it can be found at my publications page at http://www.sm.luth.se/~dugdale/index/publications.shtml @inproceedings{iwahn2002:lindgren_02, author = {Anders Lindgren and Olov Schel\'{e}n}, title = {Infrastructured ad hoc networks}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops (International Workshop on Ad Hoc Networking (IWAHN 2002))}, year = {2002}, pages = {64-70}, month = aug, url = {http://www.sm.luth.se/csee/csn/publications/iwahn2002_lindgren.pdf} } /Anders On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, ayman ghazi wrote: > second question is, all Manet Protocol it used for assumption that > all nodes are moving (highly dynamic, or medium dynamic), but we > have some kind of network where most node are moving( hihgly > dynamic), but some nodes are eaither semi fixed or fixed (  like > WaveLAN with some fix Access points and many mobile nodes), so are > there any protocols for this condition. > > thanks > Ayman _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 2 10:56:34 2003 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 KAA06974 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h02G4rq00457 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:04:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02G4rJ00454 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:04:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06968 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:56:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02FnWJ32120; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:49:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02FlwJ32057 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:47:58 -0500 Received: from web8206.mail.in.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA06600 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:39:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030102154217.67301.qmail@web8206.mail.in.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.162.254.155] by web8206.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 02 Jan 2003 15:42:17 GMT Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:42:17 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?arunachalam=20srinivas?= To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] Research Initiatives 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear all, I have subscribed to this mailing list very recently and I want to have some research initiatives in this area. So, I would be grateful to you if you could suggest me any reading material that gives the insight into the issues relating manets and the problems involved. I shall be grateful to you for your time. Thanking you, Arunachalam. ________________________________________________________________________ Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV. visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 2 15:53:37 2003 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 PAA13966 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:53:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h02L24t21104 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:02:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02L24J21101 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:02:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13957 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:53:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02KpBJ20357; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:51:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02KmjJ20254 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:48:45 -0500 Received: from kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13618 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:39:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from KC-MAIL1.kc.umkc.edu ([134.193.143.161] RDNS failed) by kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 2 Jan 2003 14:42:59 -0600 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 14:42:58 -0600 Message-ID: <4CA39AD6E7BBFE46B38383D363CE33A301C13040@KC-MAIL2.kc.umkc.edu> Thread-Topic: unsubscribe me Thread-Index: AcKyn4j+odm+TvMSSJuN+bhYd6w8yw== From: "Nalla, Vijay Kumar Reddy (UMKC-Student)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2003 20:42:59.0349 (UTC) FILETIME=[89568C50:01C2B29F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h02KmjJ20255 Subject: [manet] unsubscribe 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Please unsubscribe me from the mailing list. Thanking you, Vijay. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 2 17:41:33 2003 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 RAA16232 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:41:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h02Mo1428981 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02Mo1J28978 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:50:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16229 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:41:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02MdwJ28525; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:39:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02MXPJ27711 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:33:25 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15979 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:24:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h02MRbJH013310 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:27:38 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:27:45 -0400 From: zhen To: manet@ietf.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Message-ID: <3E332E60@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] one way hash in SAODV 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit surely it prevents hop counts from being decremented, still it can be incremented arbitrarily. Say some node is on the best route, it increments the hop-count many many times-proper as it thinks, of course, won't that cause the optimal route is rejected so as to cause some waste of resources. Is this right? any idea with the extent of wasting? best Zhen _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 3 22:59:45 2003 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 WAA24998 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:59:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0448oP14610 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 23:08:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0448nJ14607 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 23:08:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24995 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:59:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h043oNJ13183; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:50:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h043fqJ12967 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:41:52 -0500 Received: from gandalf.icr.a-star.edu.sg (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24615 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg (gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg [137.132.31.253]) by gandalf.icr.a-star.edu.sg (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h043aLXw001780 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:36:21 +0800 (SGT) Received: from Ring (dial63-44.dialup.nus.edu.sg [137.132.63.44]) by gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:30:09 +0800 Message-ID: <001101c2b3a3$b50fade0$2c3f8489@Ring> From: "Paul Tan" To: "Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001" , "'Sumeeth Nagaraj'" , "Sachin Ganu" , "Grzegorz Banasiak" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [manet] RTS/CTS in wireless MAC Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:45:18 +0800 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, in WLAN, collision detection is not possible due to what is know as the "near/far" problem. To detect a collision, a station must be able to transmit and listen at the same time. For this reason, 802.11 uses a different protocol known as Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) or the Distributed Coordination Function (DCF). CSMA/CA attempts to avoid packet collisions by using explicit packet acknowledgement (ACK), which means that an ACK packet is sent by the receiving station to confirm that a packet arrived intact. CSMA/CA works by having the station that wishes to transmit senses the channel and if there is no activity detected, the station will wait an additional random period of time (DIFS) and if there still is no activity, it will transmit the data. If the packet is received intact (checksum), the receiving station will send and ACK frame that once it is received by the original sender the transmission is complete. If the ACK command is not received in a specified random period of time, the data packet will be resent, assuming that the original packet experienced a collision. By telling the card to go into "promiscuous mode", all traffic seen is passed to the operating system. On a shared media network, this lets a station to spy on every packet traversing the 'air'. Yes, you can still tx/rx data. Cheers, Paul Tan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001" To: "'Sumeeth Nagaraj'" ; "Sachin Ganu" ; "Grzegorz Banasiak" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:30 AM Subject: RE: [manet] RTS/CTS in wireless MAC > > So then how can the receiver knows if there is a collosion? Does it just check > the "checksum" of the data packet? Another question. If the wireless LAN i/f > (i.e. waveLan) is put into promiscuous mode, it can receive all data > transmissions that reach it. But can it also send data (in promiscuous mode) > when it is not receiving data? > > Thank in advance. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sumeeth Nagaraj [mailto:snagaraj@cc.usu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2002 7:31 > To: Sachin Ganu; Grzegorz Banasiak > Cc: manet@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [manet] RTS/CTS in wireless MAC > > > CSMA/ CD is used in the Ethernet, Collision Detection is not possible > because of the Half-Duplex nature of the nodes. The wireless nodes can > either transmit or receive and hence cannot detect collisions at the > destination(receiver). CSMA/CA is used and not CSMA/CD. > > Best Regards, > Sumeeth > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jan 5 20:23:13 2003 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 UAA13189 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 20:23:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h061XCO32129 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 20:33:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h061XCJ32126 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 20:33:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13179 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 20:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0616MJ30731; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 20:06:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h060uuJ30501 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:56:56 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12818 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:46:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 16:40:55 -0800 Received: from 203.202.88.90 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 00:40:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [203.202.88.90] From: "Victoria Sudareva" To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] RTS/CTS in wireless MAC Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 11:10:55 +1030 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2003 00:40:55.0968 (UTC) FILETIME=[461AFA00:01C2B51C] 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Paul, DIFS is not random and is specified for each protocol (a, b, g). 802.11 uses two mechanism for sensing the media: physical (actual receiving) and virtual (NAV). If both of them indicate clear medium and previous frame was tx/rx without errors then STA or AP will wait for DIFS. If no activity is detected during this period then the STA/AP 'owns' the medium and the frame is transmitted. Otherwise STA/AP goes into the backoff procedure. This is a simplified description but generally it holds. Regards, Jack Sudarev. >Message: 1 >From: "Paul Tan" >To: "Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001" , > "'Sumeeth Nagaraj'" , > "Sachin Ganu" , > "Grzegorz Banasiak" >Cc: >Subject: Re: [manet] RTS/CTS in wireless MAC >Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:45:18 +0800 > >Hi, > >in WLAN, collision detection is not possible due to what is know as the >"near/far" problem. To detect a collision, a station must be able to >transmit and listen at the same time. For this reason, 802.11 uses a >different protocol known as Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision >Avoidance (CSMA/CA) or the Distributed Coordination Function (DCF). CSMA/CA >attempts to avoid packet collisions by using explicit packet >acknowledgement >(ACK), which means that an ACK packet is sent by the receiving station to >confirm that a packet arrived intact. >CSMA/CA works by having the station that wishes to transmit senses the >channel and if there is no activity detected, the station will wait an >additional random period of time (DIFS) and if there still is no activity, >it will transmit the data. If the packet is received intact (checksum), the >receiving station will send and ACK frame that once it is received by the >original sender the transmission is complete. If the ACK command is not >received in a specified random period of time, the data packet will be >resent, assuming that the original packet experienced a collision. > >By telling the card to go into "promiscuous mode", all traffic seen is >passed to the operating system. On a shared media network, this lets a >station to spy on every packet traversing the 'air'. Yes, you can still >tx/rx data. > >Cheers, > >Paul Tan > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001" >To: "'Sumeeth Nagaraj'" ; "Sachin Ganu" >; "Grzegorz Banasiak" >Cc: >Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:30 AM >Subject: RE: [manet] RTS/CTS in wireless MAC > > > > > > So then how can the receiver knows if there is a collosion? Does it just >check > > the "checksum" of the data packet? Another question. If the wireless >LAN >i/f > > (i.e. waveLan) is put into promiscuous mode, it can receive all data > > transmissions that reach it. But can it also send data (in promiscuous >mode) > > when it is not receiving data? > > > > Thank in advance. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sumeeth Nagaraj [mailto:snagaraj@cc.usu.edu] > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2002 7:31 > > To: Sachin Ganu; Grzegorz Banasiak > > Cc: manet@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [manet] RTS/CTS in wireless MAC > > > > > > CSMA/ CD is used in the Ethernet, Collision Detection is not possible > > because of the Half-Duplex nature of the nodes. The wireless nodes can > > either transmit or receive and hence cannot detect collisions at the > > destination(receiver). CSMA/CA is used and not CSMA/CD. > > > > Best Regards, > > Sumeeth > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 5 22:38:07 2003 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 WAA14854 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 22:38:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h063mA606797 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 22:48:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h063mAJ06794 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 22:48:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14847 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 22:37:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h063NhJ05332; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 22:23:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h063KXJ05254 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 22:20:33 -0500 Received: from patty.levels.unisa.edu.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14371 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 22:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from pphampc.itr.unisa.edu.au (haddock [172.17.0.69]) by patty.levels.unisa.edu.au (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h063DCpt028632 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:43:12 +1030 (CST) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:43:15 +1030 From: Peter Phuc Pham X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62 Christmas Edition) Reply-To: Peter Phuc Pham Organization: ITR X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <17111403537.20030106134315@spri.levels.unisa.edu.au> To: "'manet@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, I need help for this simple question. For a queueing system M/M/1/K with the arrival rate is lambda. What is the propability of packet loss In the book, it is only give the formula for probability of having k packet in the queue (length K). Any help appreciated. -- Best regards, Peter mailto:nppham@myrealbox.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 6 12:15:14 2003 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 MAA07728 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:15:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h06HPXt31617 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:25:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h06HPXJ31614 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:25:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07700 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:14:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h06HDNJ31032; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:13:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h06HBHJ30941 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:11:17 -0500 Received: from ees1s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07322 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:00:24 -0500 (EST) From: mjlee@ees1s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu Received: from eents0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (eents0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu [134.74.16.141]) by ees1s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16370; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:02:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by eents0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (8.10.2/8.8.7) id h06GmNI15852; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:48:23 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: eents0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu: nobody set sender to mjlee@ee-mail.engr.ccny.cuny.edu using -f To: tccc@cs.columbia.edu, manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <1041871703.3e19b35748ac4@134.74.16.141> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 11:48:23 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.4 X-Originating-IP: 134.74.16.208 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] An Immediate Postdoctoral Position 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Apologies if you receive multiple copies! A postdoctoral position at the Department of Electrical Engineering, City University of New York, is open to IMMEDIATELY hire a qualified individual. The interested research areas are wireless mobile ad hoc networks, sensor network, and embedded system. Network testbed experience is a plus. The appointment is for two years, but renewable contingent on the performance and funding. Interested, send your CV, research statement with three references to: lee@ccny.cuny.edu, FAX: 1-212-650-7248 (attn: Prof. Lee), or Prof. Myung J Lee, Department of Electrical Engineering, City University of New York, New York, NY 10031 Prof. Myung J. Lee Dept of EE City University of New York New York, NY 10031 Tel: 212-650-7260 Email: lee@ccny.cuny.edu ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: 134.74.16.141 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 6 17:01:10 2003 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 RAA16521 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:01:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h06MBZs19198 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:11:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h06MBZJ19195 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:11:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16476 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:00:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h06LuUJ16861; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:56:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h06LmOJ16616 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:48:24 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15556 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:37:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h06LehJH011472 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:40:43 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:40:51 -0400 From: zhen To: manet@ietf.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Message-ID: <3E3C4926@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] time interval 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, In the paper"Ariadne: a secure on-demand routing protocol for ad hoc networks", is the "time interval" field in RREQ for the comm. between the initiator and the target or between the pair of nodes at each hop? thank you in advance Zhen _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 6 18:26:32 2003 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 SAA18647 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:26:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h06NawT24357 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:36:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h06NawJ24354 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:36:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18622 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:25:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h06NOuJ23815; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:24:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h06NK8J23638 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:20:08 -0500 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18278 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:09:08 -0500 (EST) 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 SAA14782; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:12:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SAVSMTP 3.0.1.45) with SMTP id M2003010618121732472 ; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 18:12:17 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20030106175248.02462ff0@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 18:10:14 -0500 To: Anders Lindgren From: Joe Macker Subject: Re: [manet] General questions Cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030102151916.X40061-100000@dugdale.cdt.luth.se> References: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 03:25 PM 1/2/2003 +0100, Anders Lindgren wrote: >Ayman, > > >We have developed ISAIAH, a slight modification of AODV that works in a >scenario as the one you describe below (in our scenarios we do however >also assume that the fixed nodes have better power supplies than the >mobile nodes (they can e.g. be plugged into a power outlet)). > >We have a paper describing this protocol (BibTeX entry below), and it can >be found at my publications page at >http://www.sm.luth.se/~dugdale/index/publications.shtml Anders: That is interesting..we and others have proposed similar approaches for hybrid operation of existing protocols. Other slight additions to specifications such as OLSR and TBRPF (e.g., preferred router metrics) also make such infrastructured designs directly manageable. We have seen this as a practical approach that is likely very useful for potential community or campus type of deployments. -Joe _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 7 06:55:01 2003 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 GAA10400 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 06:55:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h07C5hS14122 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:05:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07C5hJ14118 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:05:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10392 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 06:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07BTiJ11665; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 06:29:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07BLWJ11384 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 06:21:32 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA09317 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 06:10:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.36]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.1/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h07BFXt11839 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:15:33 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:13:34 +0200 Received: from mgw.research.nokia.com ([172.21.33.76]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:13:33 +0200 Received: from nokia.com (manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112]) by mgw.research.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29914; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:13:32 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: mgw.research.nokia.com: Host manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112] claimed to be nokia.com Message-ID: <3E1AB5C0.3000002@nokia.com> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:10:56 +0200 From: Manel Guerrero Zapata User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020623 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ext zhen CC: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] one way hash in SAODV References: <3E332E60@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jan 2003 11:13:33.0502 (UTC) FILETIME=[D0F8C5E0:01C2B63D] 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yeah, you are right. I recomend to look to the papers about SAODV in: http://ant.eupvg.upc.es/~tarom/saodv.html specially the updated version of the paper I presented in WiSe: http://ant.eupvg.upc.es/~tarom/guerrero_wise_2002.ps.gz In the section #3 (Requirements) of this paper you can see that prevention against DoS is not one of the requirements of SAODV. (For more detailed analysis of the limitations of the hash approach look to the section #5.3.5 (Analysis).) So if you want some kind of protection against DoS you should look somewhere else. BUT, in my opinion it makes no sense to try protect the routing layer because if I want to do a DoS, I'll do it at physical or link layer (where it is much more easy and routing protocol independent). So let's do not waste resources to try to partialy protect something that the bad boys are gonna attack from another layer. There are some manet protocols that claim that they protect against DoS (partialy or totaly). IMHO, they are just protecting _some_ of the windows of the third flour, letting any enemy get in through the main door that is in the basement. (sorry for the lousy metafora) ;) Regards, Manel Guerrero ext zhen wrote: > surely it prevents hop counts from being decremented, still it can be > incremented arbitrarily. Say some node is on the best route, it increments the > hop-count many many times-proper as it thinks, of course, won't that cause the > optimal route is rejected so as to cause some waste of resources. > > Is this right? any idea with the extent of wasting? > > best > > Zhen > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 7 07:46:39 2003 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 HAA11270 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:46:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h07CvM017312 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:57:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07CvMJ17309 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:57:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11266 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:46:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07CjEJ16854; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:45:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07CfTJ16672 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:41:29 -0500 Received: from sm204.163.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11007 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sm204.163.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DE84F1C6D09E3 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 20:33:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from hellsun (unknown [202.112.101.162]) by 192.168.1.204 (Coremail:www.163.com) with SMTP id Xw0AAAzJGj67GGWi.1 for ; Tue, 07 Jan 2003 20:33:16 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 20:33:35 +0800 From: "=?GB2312?Q?=CB=EF=C1=C1?=" To: manet X-mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20030107123316.DE84F1C6D09E3@sm204.163.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] How about the bandwidth allocation in mobile ad hoc networks? 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Is there anybody to do(or know)any works in the bandwidth allocation in MANET? I want to do some research about this issue, can anyone give me any help? Thanks,first! _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 7 09:02:41 2003 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 JAA14283 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:02:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h07EDPv22529 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:13:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07EDOJ22526 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:13:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14161 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:59:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07DmIJ20498; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:48:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07DewJ20163 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:40:58 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12203; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:29:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301071329.IAA12203@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: manet@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 08:29:43 -0500 Subject: [manet] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-manet-olsr-07.txt 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Author(s) : T. Clausen, P. Jacquet et al. Filename : draft-ietf-manet-olsr-07.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2003-1-6 This document describes the Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. The protocol is an optimization of the classical link state algorithm tailored to the requirements of a mobile wireless LAN. The key concept used in the protocol is that of multipoint relays (MPRs) [1], [2]. MPRs are selected nodes which forward broadcast messages during the flooding process. This technique substantially reduces the message overhead as compared to a classical flooding mechanism, where every node retransmits each message when it receives the first copy of the message. In OLSR, link state information is generated only by nodes elected as MPRs. Thus, a second optimization is achieved by minimizing the number of control messages flooded in the network. As a third optimization, an MPR node may chose to report only links between itself and its MPR selectors. Hence, as contrary to the classic link state algorithm, partial link state information is distributed in the network. This information is then used by the OLSR protocol for route calculation. OLSR provides optimal routes (in terms of number of hops). The protocol is particularly suitable for large and dense networks as the technique of MPRs works well in this context. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsr-07.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-manet-olsr-07.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsr-07.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-1-6145422.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsr-07.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-manet-olsr-07.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-1-6145422.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 7 15:30:47 2003 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 PAA27407 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:30:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h07Kfdk16714 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:41:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07KfcJ16711 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:41:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27383 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:30:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07KT2J15591; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07KONJ15425 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:24:23 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26969 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h07KGCJH013017; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:16:13 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:15:49 -0400 From: zhen To: Manel Guerrero Zapata Cc: manet@ietf.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Subject: RE: [manet] one way hash in SAODV Message-ID: <3E40075F@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DoS? Yeah, since it disturbs the network, it could be called that. But it is not so big as in the scale of network. Anyway, it is a kind of nasty thing some nodes can do. Also, in the paper you mentioned in the reply, compromised nodes are not considered when designing SAODV. It seems hard to draw a line between the attacks from external nodes and internal nodes. Anyway,if authentication(digital signature)is used, most attacks can only be performed by internal nodes. What is the sense to protect routing information then? Only because our enemies are internal nodes now. We have to prevent them (external or internal nodes)from exploiting routing procedure. You are right. Basic infrastructures(physical and link layer) are weak. It seems no sense to do research any more on routing protection. I am really puzzled about this. -- or anyway, we should do what we can do? Isnot that a good idea to categorize MANET applications finely to make our research more destinative? Also:if the design for now is enough for relatively friendly environment? So what we do is only gonna to focus on military goals? I am just starting my work, also in research. i would like to hear what others think about the research room in routing security of MANET. best wish Zhen >===== Original Message From Manel Guerrero Zapata ===== >Yeah, you are right. > >I recomend to look to the papers about SAODV in: > >http://ant.eupvg.upc.es/~tarom/saodv.html > >specially the updated version of the paper I presented in WiSe: > >http://ant.eupvg.upc.es/~tarom/guerrero_wise_2002.ps.gz > >In the section #3 (Requirements) of this paper you can see that >prevention against DoS is not one of the requirements of SAODV. >(For more detailed analysis of the limitations of the hash approach >look to the section #5.3.5 (Analysis).) >So if you want some kind of protection against DoS you should look >somewhere else. > >BUT, in my opinion it makes no sense to try protect the routing layer >because if I want to do a DoS, I'll do it at physical or link layer >(where it is much more easy and routing protocol independent). >So let's do not waste resources to try to partialy protect something >that the bad boys are gonna attack from another layer. > >There are some manet protocols that claim that they protect against >DoS (partialy or totaly). IMHO, they are just protecting _some_ of the >windows of the third flour, letting any enemy get in through >the main door that is in the basement. (sorry for the lousy metafora) ;) > > >Regards, > > Manel Guerrero > > >ext zhen wrote: >> surely it prevents hop counts from being decremented, still it can be >> incremented arbitrarily. Say some node is on the best route, it increments the >> hop-count many many times-proper as it thinks, of course, won't that cause the >> optimal route is rejected so as to cause some waste of resources. >> >> Is this right? any idea with the extent of wasting? >> >> best >> >> Zhen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Jan 7 17:55:02 2003 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 RAA01993 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:55:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h07N5vK25205 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:05:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07N5vJ25202 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:05:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01987 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:54:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07MsVJ24686; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:54:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h07MfgJ24232 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:41:42 -0500 Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01461 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:30:16 -0500 (EST) From: sandy@tislabs.com Received: by sentry.gw.tislabs.com; id RAA13738; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from raven.gw.tislabs.com(10.33.1.50) by sentry.gw.tislabs.com via smap (V5.5) id xma013711; Tue, 7 Jan 03 17:33:31 -0500 Received: (from sandy@localhost) by raven.gw.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h07MX3V15929; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:33:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:33:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301072233.h07MX3V15929@raven.gw.tislabs.com> To: manel.guerrero-zapata@nokia.com Subject: Re: [manet] one way hash in SAODV Cc: manet@ietf.org, sandy@tislabs.com 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >BUT, in my opinion it makes no sense to try protect the routing layer >because if I want to do a DoS, I'll do it at physical or link layer >(where it is much more easy and routing protocol independent). This is a typical argument for neglecting routing protocol security. My typical response is: One might do a DOS attack against one router and thereby affect the packets that are forwarded through that router. One might be able to subvert a router and do a DOS attack on all packets that are forwarded through that router. But if you can do an attack on the exchange of routing information between routers (i.e., an attack on the routing layer), then one has the opportunity to affect the forwarding of packets over, potentially, *T*H*E* *E*N*T*I*R*E* *N*E*T*W*O*R*K*. Much different scope of damage. Attacking through the physical or link layer allows you to damage everything directly attached to that physical medium or that link. Because routing information is in the network layer, attacking the routing layer lets you damage the whole network with one attack. --Sandy _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 7 19:06:08 2003 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 TAA04439 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h080H4B30267 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:17:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h080H4J30264 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:17:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04422 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:05:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0805EJ29052; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:05:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0801QJ28859 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:01:27 -0500 Received: from www.saloits.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03895 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:49:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from salo@localhost) by www.saloits.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA85381 for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:53:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from salo) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:53:14 -0600 (CST) From: "Timothy J. Salo" Message-Id: <200301072353.RAA85381@www.saloits.com> To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] one way hash in SAODV In-Reply-To: <200301072233.h07MX3V15929@raven.gw.tislabs.com> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > From: sandy@tislabs.com > Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:33:03 -0500 (EST) > Subject: Re: [manet] one way hash in SAODV > [...] > Because routing information is in the network layer, attacking the > routing layer lets you damage the whole network with one attack. > > --Sandy Who may be too modest to reference her Internet-Draft on the topic, but which may be relevant: ftp://ftp.tislabs.com/pub/rpsec/draft-murphy-threat-00.txt -tjs _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 7 19:22:52 2003 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 TAA04987 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:22:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h080XnE31049 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:33:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h080XnJ31046 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:33:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04931 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:21:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h080KQJ30418; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:20:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h080H8J30279 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:17:08 -0500 Received: from moby.atcorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04429 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:05:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from trout (trout.atcorp.com [204.72.172.5]) by moby.atcorp.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id h080BKt14457 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:11:20 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:08:12 -0600 Message-ID: <01C2B677.BDDD0FE0.rramanujan@atcorp.com> From: Ranga Ramanujan Reply-To: "rramanujan@atcorp.com" To: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [manet] one way hash in SAODV Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:08:11 -0600 Organization: ATC X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Manel Guerrero wrote: > BUT, in my opinion it makes no sense to try protect the routing layer > because if I want to do a DoS, I'll do it at physical or link layer > (where it is much more easy and routing protocol independent). > So let's do not waste resources to try to partialy protect something > that the bad boys are gonna attack from another layer. > There are some manet protocols that claim that they protect against > DoS (partialy or totaly). IMHO, they are just protecting _some_ of the > windows of the third flour, letting any enemy get in through > the main door that is in the basement. (sorry for the lousy metafora) ;) I would not be as dismissive of proposed approaches for network layer DoS defenses. They are meant to complement lower layer DoS defenses (e.g., AJ techniques in military systems). Some of the network layer techniques that I am aware of are designed to protect the network against DoS attacks launched from compromised or subverted nodes in the network. In such environments, network layer protection may be the most effective one. Ranga _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 8 04:11:06 2003 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 EAA14560 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 04:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h089MDm06999 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 04:22:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h089MCJ06995 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 04:22:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14545 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 04:10:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0894eJ05324; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 04:04:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0890uJ04901 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 04:00:57 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14034 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 03:49:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.36]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.1/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h088sVt10598 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:54:31 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:51:44 +0200 Received: from mgw.research.nokia.com ([172.21.33.76]) by esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:51:44 +0200 Received: from nokia.com (manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112]) by mgw.research.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26625; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:51:44 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: mgw.research.nokia.com: Host manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112] claimed to be nokia.com Message-ID: <3E1BE601.40300@nokia.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 10:49:05 +0200 From: Manel Guerrero Zapata User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020623 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "rramanujan@atcorp.com" CC: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] one way hash in SAODV References: <01C2B677.BDDD0FE0.rramanujan@atcorp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2003 08:51:44.0641 (UTC) FILETIME=[2BB55F10:01C2B6F3] 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SAODV was never design for military scenarios, and it should never be used in those scenarios. That's why it does not take into account problems like compromissed nodes and DoS. So the people whose target are military aplications (which actualy seem to be a huge portion of this mailing list ;) ) should be better looking for something else that SAODV. In the same way, some manet protocols designed for military aplications will not be feasible (or adecuate) for most of civil purposes. (I'm not revealing any secret here). BR/Manel ext Ranga Ramanujan wrote: > Manel Guerrero wrote: > >>BUT, in my opinion it makes no sense to try protect the routing layer >>because if I want to do a DoS, I'll do it at physical or link layer >>(where it is much more easy and routing protocol independent). >>So let's do not waste resources to try to partialy protect something >>that the bad boys are gonna attack from another layer. > > >>There are some manet protocols that claim that they protect against >>DoS (partialy or totaly). IMHO, they are just protecting _some_ of the >>windows of the third flour, letting any enemy get in through >>the main door that is in the basement. (sorry for the lousy metafora) ;) > > > I would not be as dismissive of proposed approaches for network layer > DoS defenses. They are meant to complement lower layer DoS defenses > (e.g., AJ techniques in military systems). Some of the network layer techniques > that I am aware of are designed to protect the network against DoS attacks > launched from compromised or subverted nodes in the network. In such > environments, network layer protection may be the most effective one. > > Ranga > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 8 16:04:34 2003 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 QAA07276 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h08LFv222242 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:15:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h08LFvJ22239 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:15:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07229 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:02:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h08L09J20729; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:00:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h08KsuJ20535 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:54:56 -0500 Received: from memphis.ece.cornell.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06561 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:43:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sior_Panagakhs.cornell.edu (dhcp-128-84-210-254-r3a-desktop.ece.cornell.edu [128.84.210.254]) by memphis.ece.cornell.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h08KkJL13717; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:46:19 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030108132506.025dc570@memphis.ece.cornell.edu> X-Sender: papadp@memphis.ece.cornell.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 15:48:28 -0500 To: manet@ietf.org From: Panos Papadimitratos Subject: Re: [manet] one way hash in SAODV Cc: haas@ece.cornell.edu, papadp@ece.cornell.edu In-Reply-To: <200301072233.h07MX3V15929@raven.gw.tislabs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_14150046==_.ALT" 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=====================_14150046==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear All, Indeed, the security of the routing protocol is of great importance, exactly because of the scope of the attack. This is especially true in MANET, since practically all nodes may act as both hosts and routers. Additionally, MANET routing (route/topology discovery) cannot benefit from pre-configured connectivity and pre-established authorizations granted to routers to advertise specific control/routing information (as can be the case for the wire-line Internet). Moreover, it can be very hard to maintain an up-to-date picture of the credentials of *all* present nodes in a MANET domain (roaming nodes join and leave open wireless network domains). Or, it can be of limited scope to assume such prior full knowledge. In addition, the limited processing capabilities of the mobile nodes make the use of asymmetric cryptography at each hop very expensive in the general case. All these considerations are very important for a generally applicable, practical solution for MANET secure routing. This what we are after with our Secure Routing Protocol (SRP), which: - requires cryptographic operations only at the end-nodes (and thus no secure association with any intermediate node), - uses symmetric key crypto at the end nodes only - is resilient to denial of service attacks against route discovery (it can even tolerate a Byzantine destination node that tries to provide the querying source with a false route :-) - does not rely on the detection and isolation of malicious nodes And, of course, provides correct routing information. To probe further, please see some SRP-related links below http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-papadimitratos-secure-routing-protocol-00.txt http://www.crypto.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/adhocsec/PP_ZJH.pdf http://people.cornell.edu/pages/pp59/Docs/mc2r.pdf http://people.cornell.edu/pages/pp59/Docs/wise02.pdf http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu/Publications/cnds02.pdf or browse the WNL site: http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu for additional material. Panos ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Panagiotis Papadimitratos http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/pp59 Wireless Networks Laboratory http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu School of Electrical Engineering Cornell University 374 Frank Rhodes Hall Tel: +1-607-255-9068 Ithaca, NY 14853 Fax: +1-607-255-9072 U.S.A E-mail: papadp@ece.cornell.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --=====================_14150046==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Dear All,

Indeed, the security of the routing protocol is of great importance, exactly
because of the scope of the attack. This is especially true in MANET, since
practically all nodes may act as both hosts and routers. Additionally, MANET
routing (route/topology discovery) cannot benefit from pre-configured
connectivity and pre-established authorizations granted to routers to
advertise specific control/routing information (as can be the case for the
wire-line Internet).

Moreover, it can be very hard to maintain an up-to-date picture of the credentials of *all*
present nodes in a MANET domain (roaming nodes join and leave open wireless network
domains). Or, it can be of limited scope to assume such prior full knowledge. In addition,
the limited processing capabilities of the mobile nodes make the use of asymmetric
cryptography at each hop very expensive in the general case.

All these considerations are very important for a generally applicable, practical
solution for MANET secure routing.

This what we are after with our Secure Routing Protocol (SRP), which:
 - requires cryptographic operations only at the end-nodes (and thus no secure
   association with any intermediate node),
 - uses symmetric key crypto at the end nodes only
 - is resilient to denial of service attacks against route discovery
   (it can even tolerate a Byzantine destination node that tries to provide the
    querying source with a false route :-)
 - does not rely on the detection and isolation of malicious nodes
And, of course, provides correct routing information.

To probe further, please see some SRP-related links below
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-papadimitratos-secure-routing-protocol-00.txt
http://www.crypto.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/adhocsec/PP_ZJH.pdf
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/pp59/Docs/mc2r.pdf
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/pp59/Docs/wise02.pdf
http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu/Publications/cnds02.pdf
or browse the WNL site: http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu for additional material.

Panos

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panagiotis Papadimitratos               http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/pp59
Wireless Networks Laboratory    http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu
School of Electrical Engineering                                                            
Cornell University                                                                                          
374 Frank Rhodes Hall           Tel: +1-607-255-9068    
Ithaca, NY 14853                        Fax: +1-607-255-9072
U.S.A                                   E-mail: papadp@ece.cornell.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --=====================_14150046==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 8 16:41:00 2003 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 QAA08720 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:41:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h08LqMm24762 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:52:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h08LqLJ24759 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:52:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08695 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h08LfmJ24120; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:41:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h08LcjJ23956 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:38:45 -0500 Received: from mail.scires.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07905 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:26:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from SRCATL-MTA by mail.scires.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 08 Jan 2003 16:31:23 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.2 Beta Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 16:30:59 -0500 From: "Pete Sholander" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: [manet] one way hash in SAODV Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h08LcjJ23957 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit But is SAODV suitable for large-scale paintball games at least ;-) More seriously (and without going down a "rathole") is there any group consensus on the characteristics of a few commercial sector applications (neighborhood area ad hoc networks, factory area networks, conference room area networks, ...) for this WGs technology? --Pete Sholander >>> Manel Guerrero Zapata 01/08/03 03:49AM >>> SAODV was never design for military scenarios, and it should never be used in those scenarios. That's why it does not take into account problems like compromissed nodes and DoS. So the people whose target are military aplications (which actualy seem to be a huge portion of this mailing list ;) ) should be better looking for something else that SAODV. In the same way, some manet protocols designed for military aplications will not be feasible (or adecuate) for most of civil purposes. (I'm not revealing any secret here). BR/Manel ext Ranga Ramanujan wrote: > Manel Guerrero wrote: > >>BUT, in my opinion it makes no sense to try protect the routing layer >>because if I want to do a DoS, I'll do it at physical or link layer >>(where it is much more easy and routing protocol independent). >>So let's do not waste resources to try to partialy protect something >>that the bad boys are gonna attack from another layer. > > >>There are some manet protocols that claim that they protect against >>DoS (partialy or totaly). IMHO, they are just protecting _some_ of the >>windows of the third flour, letting any enemy get in through >>the main door that is in the basement. (sorry for the lousy metafora) ;) > > > I would not be as dismissive of proposed approaches for network layer > DoS defenses. They are meant to complement lower layer DoS defenses > (e.g., AJ techniques in military systems). Some of the network layer techniques > that I am aware of are designed to protect the network against DoS attacks > launched from compromised or subverted nodes in the network. In such > environments, network layer protection may be the most effective one. > > Ranga > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 9 10:49:09 2003 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 KAA15190 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h09G0tW00845 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:00:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09G0tJ00842 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:00:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15168 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:47:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09FbOJ31573; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:37:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09FV6J30755 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:31:06 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14168 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h09FM2JH012977 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:22:02 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:22:10 -0400 From: zhen To: manet@ietf.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Message-ID: <3E1E0AED@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Ariadne time interval 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey,folks, I have a simple question which seems not clear from the paper"Ariadne:..".If you could give me a brief explanation, I would appreciate it a lot. The question is about the time interval. Are all nodes in same time-interval at the same time? If not, how to guarantee that the keys of nodes on the path from initiator to target are not disclosed? best wish Zhen Zhen Dalhousie University Faculty of Computer Science _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 9 12:53:37 2003 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 MAA18967 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:53:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h09I5On10047 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:05:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09I5OJ10044 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:05:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18870 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:49:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09HqoJ09448; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:52:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09Hh3J09160 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:43:03 -0500 Received: from ece.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18484 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:30:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ece.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id A394E68A7F for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:34:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ece.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5FD68A17 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:34:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from egress.ece.rice.edu (egress.ece.rice.edu [128.42.12.74]) by ece.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45EB768A5E for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:34:00 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (kanodia@localhost) by egress.ece.rice.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09261 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:34:00 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: egress.ece.rice.edu: kanodia owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:34:00 -0600 (CST) From: Vikram Kanodia X-Sender: kanodia@egress.ece.rice.edu To: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3E1E0AED@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020300 X-DCC--Metrics: ece.rice.edu 1066; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [manet] 802.11 channel overlap 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Is anybody aware of a study quantifying the Co-channel interference for 802.11. For example, 802.11b has 11 channels, 3 of them totally non-overlapping. However, if the channel separation is less than 3 (in case of multiple co-located AP's for example), does anyone know what is the interference impact of the overlap ? Any pointers/help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -Vikram Department of ECE, Rice University | 713 348 3786 (O)| 713 664 5650(H) WWW: http://www.ece.rice.edu/~kanodia _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 10 10:49:27 2003 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 KAA01473 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:49:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0AG1gG08985 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:01:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0AG1gJ08982 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:01:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01450 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:48:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0AFiEJ07813; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:44:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0AFd2J07516 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:39:02 -0500 Received: from web40705.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA00599 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:26:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030110152935.74287.qmail@web40705.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [129.10.115.160] by web40705.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:29:35 PST Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:29:35 -0800 (PST) From: feng zhu Subject: Re: [manet] one way hash in SAODV To: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3E332E60@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Can we say that ... The node, on some (maybe the best) route, which increments the hop-count many many times-proper as it thinks, is a malicious node. The responsibility of SAODV and other secure routing protocols is only to find a (maybe the best - shortest or fastest) available route. So the route most likely does not(or should not) includes the malicious nodes. If some malicious node is on a route, it increments the hop-count many many times-proper as it thinks, then that only cause the route, which including this malicious node, is rejected. It just means that this rount is not the best available route because it include a melicious node. Best, --Feng --- zhen wrote: > surely it prevents hop counts from being > decremented, still it can be > incremented arbitrarily. Say some node is on the > best route, it increments the > hop-count many many times-proper as it thinks, of > course, won't that cause the > optimal route is rejected so as to cause some waste > of resources. > > Is this right? any idea with the extent of wasting? > > best > > Zhen > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ===== ============================== ZHU, Feng zf_manet@yahoo.com http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zhufeng/security_manet.html __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 10 10:51:09 2003 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 KAA01537 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0AG3Ov09085 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:03:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0AG3OJ09082 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:03:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01515 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0AFl9J07949; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:47:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0AFi2J07795 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:44:02 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00779 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:31:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0AFYXJH013720 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:34:33 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:34:30 -0400 From: zhen To: manet@ietf.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Message-ID: <3E229A83@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] delay of reactive protocol 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello,folks, Just want a quick impression if possible. thanks. This is a very basic question for a person working on MANET, what can you compare the routing delay when using reactive protocols to? If using proactive protocol is ADSL browsing, what would you describe reactive ones? 56k,28k,14k? best Zhen _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 11 23:19:15 2003 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 XAA24505 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:19:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0C4WE630540 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:32:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0C4WDJ30537 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:32:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24471 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:18:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0C4LKJ30228; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:21:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0C4AIJ30006 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:10:18 -0500 Received: from smtp.eecs.umich.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24187 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from clueless.eecs.umich.edu (clueless.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.18.225]) by smtp.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0C3iCUf006566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:44:13 -0500 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:59:16 -0500 (EST) From: Mingyan Liu To: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030110152935.74287.qmail@web40705.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No -- Hits: -0.6 Required: 6 X-Spam-Summary: IN_REP_TO,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT_PINE X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.26 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Subject: [manet] random waypoint model 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, You may be interested in our recent paper on the random waypoint model that is going to appear in Infocom 2003: http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~mingyan/pub/random-waypoint.pdf Abstract -- This study examines the random waypoint model widely used in the simulation studies of mobile ad hoc networks. Our findings show that this model fails to provide a steady state in that the average nodal speed consistently decreases over time, and therefore should not be directly used for simulation. We show how unreliable results can be obtained by using this model. In particular, certain ad hoc routing metrics can drop by as much as 40% over the course of a 900-second simulation using the random waypoint model. We give both an intuitive and a formal explanation for this phenomenon. We also propose a simple fix of the problem and discuss a few alternatives. Our modified random waypoint model is able to reach a steady state and simulation results are presented. -mingyan _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 13 05:55:05 2003 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 FAA07585 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:55:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0DB8f115317 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 06:08:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DB8fJ15314 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 06:08:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA07572 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DArqJ13761; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:53:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DAm9J13571 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:48:09 -0500 Received: from relay4.clb.oleane.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA07133 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:34:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from oleane ([194.250.212.114]) by relay4.clb.oleane.net with SMTP id h0DAbKDh029974 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:37:20 +0100 Message-ID: <01fa01c2baef$c6272740$0601a8c0@oleane.com> From: "Peter Lewis" To: Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:37:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01F7_01C2BAF8.27A0CAA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Subject: [manet] IPCN 2003 (IP-based Cellular Networks) 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01F7_01C2BAF8.27A0CAA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable IPCN 2003 (IP-based Cellular Networks) will take place in Paris on June = 17 to 20, 2003.=20 One of the most interesting new areas of IPCN is the relationship = between the licensed 2.5/3G services and 802.11 hot spots. How can = optimal use be made of both environments such that a realistic business = service is possible? The objectives of the fourth edition of IPCN is to provide detailed = responses to this question. The dead line for papers submission has been extended to February 15th. More details at: http://www.upperside.fr/ipcn03/ipcn03intro.htm ------=_NextPart_000_01F7_01C2BAF8.27A0CAA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

IPCN 2003 (IP-based = Cellular=20 Networks) will take place in Paris on June 17 to = 20, 2003.=20
One of the most interesting new areas = of IPCN is=20 the relationship between the licensed 2.5/3G services and 802.11 hot = spots. How=20 can optimal use be made of both environments such that a realistic = business=20 service is possible?
The objectives of the fourth edition of IPCN is = to=20 provide detailed responses to this question.

The dead=20 line for papers submission has been extended to February=20 15th.
More details at:
http://www.uppers= ide.fr/ipcn03/ipcn03intro.htm
 
------=_NextPart_000_01F7_01C2BAF8.27A0CAA0-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 13 10:56:24 2003 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 KAA14869 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:56:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0DGA6802661 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:10:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DGA6J02658 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:10:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14855 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DFrCJ00852; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:53:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DFoAJ00708 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:50:10 -0500 Received: from web14612.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA13692 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:35:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030113153917.6679.qmail@web14612.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [193.95.33.18] by web14612.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:39:17 CET Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:39:17 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?stream=20stream?= To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-451226442-1042472357=:5883" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] key management 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --0-451226442-1042472357=:5883 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit hi everybody, i've read most article concerning key management in ad hoc networks. most of them eliminate the centralised solution saying that it is not suitable for this type of network. i would be very pleased if anyone sends me the reasons. any help would be appreciated regards --------------------------------- Yahoo! Móviles Personaliza tu móvil con tu logo y melodía favorito --0-451226442-1042472357=:5883 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

hi everybody,

i've read most article concerning key management in ad hoc networks. most of them eliminate the centralised solution saying that it is not suitable for this type of network. i would be very pleased if anyone sends me the reasons.

any help would be appreciated

regards 

Yahoo! Móviles
Personaliza tu móvil con tu logo y melodía favorito --0-451226442-1042472357=:5883-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 13 15:44:51 2003 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 PAA23571 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0DKwcm21753 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:58:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DKwcJ21750 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:58:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23545 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:44:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DKahJ20028; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:36:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DKYbJ19915 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:34:37 -0500 Received: from WestSide.cs.uiuc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22626 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:20:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from cs.uiuc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by WestSide.cs.uiuc.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h0DKO6HG028269; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:24:06 -0600 Message-ID: <3E232066.8000105@cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:24:06 -0600 From: Seung Yi Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ko, ko-kr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org CC: stream stream Subject: Re: [manet] key management References: <20030113153917.6679.qmail@web14612.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20030113153917.6679.qmail@web14612.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit stream stream wrote: > hi everybody, > > i've read most article concerning key management in ad hoc networks. > most of them eliminate the centralised solution saying that it is not > suitable for this type of network. i would be very pleased if anyone > sends me the reasons. > > any help would be appreciated > > regards > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Yahoo! Móviles* > Personaliza tu móvil con tu logo y melodía favorito > > Mainly three reasons I can think of: 1. Security - The security of the centralized key management solutions depend on a single node. Once that node is compromised, whole scheme collapses. Also the central makes a too tempting target for adversaries. :) 2. Fault Tolerance - Same argument holds for fault tolerance. If the central node fails, whole system fails. 3. Availability - In ad hoc networks, connectivity to any one node is not always guaranteed. Even when the central node is up and operating normally, there may be simply many nodes that cannot contact the central nodes due to network partition, inteference, congestion, etc. Hmm. What did I miss? _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 14 02:27:33 2003 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 CAA17542 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:27:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0E7fYj06558 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:41:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0E7fYJ06555 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:41:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17524 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0E7OIJ04290; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:24:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0E7JQJ04128 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:19:26 -0500 Received: from orca.informatik.uni-ulm.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13617 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:04:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by orca.informatik.uni-ulm.de (Postfix, from userid 508) id 352E2FBF8; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:08:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:08:30 +0100 From: Stefan Schlott To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] key management Message-ID: <20030114070830.GC20906@orca.informatik.uni-ulm.de> References: <20030113153917.6679.qmail@web14612.mail.yahoo.com> <3E232066.8000105@cs.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E232066.8000105@cs.uiuc.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Mainly three reasons I can think of: > 1. Security > 2. Fault Tolerance > 3. Availability > Hmm. What did I miss? I would add 4. Missing infrastructure - in some ad-hoc scenarios, the network is formed spontaneously, with no dedicated server/master. Who should do the key management here? Does everyone trust this entity? What if the elected key server quits the net? Stefan. -- *--- please cut here... -------------------------------------- thanks! ---* |-> E-Mail: stefan.schlott@informatik.uni-ulm.de PGP-Key: 0x2F36F4FE <-| | Heh, heh, I have an "NSA Hitachi" monitor on my desk... Must have a | | hidden camera in it? | | -- Seen in the thread "NSA and MS windows" on sci.crypt (06.09.1999) | *-------------------------------------------------------------------------* _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 14 03:54:34 2003 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 DAA19257 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 03:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0E98ac12442 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 04:08:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0E98ZJ12423 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 04:08:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA19253 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 03:54:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0E8wDJ11139; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 03:58:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0E8utJ11061 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 03:56:55 -0500 Received: from p-mail1 (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA19119 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 03:42:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from LANMHS20.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.21.60]) by parsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:45:40 +0100 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:45:38 +0100 Message-ID: <0489A7888F080B4BA73B53F7E145F29ADE2E7D@lanmhs20.rd.francetelecom.fr> Thread-Topic: Cross-compiler Thread-Index: AcK7qL/O2v6WSY3XShCylWc+H7EPhAAAFh8g From: "MEDDOUR Djamal Eddine thesard FTRD/DAC/LAN" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2003 08:45:40.0211 (UTC) FILETIME=[50F84430:01C2BBA9] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0E8utJ11062 Subject: [manet] Cross-compiler 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi everybody, Is there here anyone who knows a cross-complier for ARM? Sincerely _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 14 05:21:30 2003 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 FAA20483 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 05:21:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EAZZL17116 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 05:35:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EAZYJ17113 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 05:35:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20471 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 05:20:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EAQ7J16723; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 05:26:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EAMYJ16602 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 05:22:34 -0500 Received: from sm.luth.se (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20285 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 05:07:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from dugdale.cdt.luth.se (dugdale.cdt.luth.se [130.240.64.172]) by sm.luth.se (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h0EABHqD028293; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:11:18 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:12:09 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Lindgren X-X-Sender: dugdale@dugdale.cdt.luth.se To: Joe Macker cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] General questions In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.5.2.20030106175248.02462ff0@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> Message-ID: <20030107040028.Q50292-100000@dugdale.cdt.luth.se> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Joe, Glad to hear you found our work interesting. Do you have any pointers to the other work you mention? It would be interesting to look more into that. Regards, /Anders On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Joe Macker wrote: > At 03:25 PM 1/2/2003 +0100, Anders Lindgren wrote: > >Ayman, > > > > > >We have developed ISAIAH, a slight modification of AODV that works in a > >scenario as the one you describe below (in our scenarios we do however > >also assume that the fixed nodes have better power supplies than the > >mobile nodes (they can e.g. be plugged into a power outlet)). > > > >We have a paper describing this protocol (BibTeX entry below), and it can > >be found at my publications page at > >http://www.sm.luth.se/~dugdale/index/publications.shtml > > Anders: > > That is interesting..we and others have proposed similar approaches for > hybrid operation of existing protocols. Other slight additions to > specifications such as OLSR and TBRPF (e.g., preferred router metrics) > also make such infrastructured designs directly manageable. We have seen > this as a practical approach that is likely very useful for potential > community or campus type of deployments. > > -Joe > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 14 08:44:26 2003 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 IAA23908 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EDwaw29760 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:58:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EDwZJ29757 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:58:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA23901 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EDkMJ28944; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:46:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EDfJJ28731 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:41:19 -0500 Received: from rasheen.osdp.is.tsukuba.ac.jp (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA23398 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:26:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from John (bill.is.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.81.66]) by rasheen.osdp.is.tsukuba.ac.jp (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h0EDTpXV008137; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:29:51 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from lijie@is.tsukuba.ac.jp) Message-ID: <025a01c2bbd0$ddb05df0$42519e82@John> From: "Jie Li" To: Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:28:46 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] CFP - SPECTS 2003 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Colleagues, Please kindly note that the deadline for the paper submission is approaching. Please forward the following info to the proper candidates. I apologize if you receive multiple copies of this message. Sincerely, --- Dr. Jie Li Institute of Infomation Sciences & Electronics University of Tsukuba Tsukuba Science City, Ibaraki 305-8573 Japan Call For Papers %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2003 International Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (SPECTS 2003) July 20-24, 2003 Montreal, Canada http://scs.org/confernc/ssimc/ssimc03/cfp/spects03.htm Submission Deadlines Submission of Papers: January 31, 2003. Notification of Acceptance - April 25, 2003 Final Camera-Ready Submission - May 23, 2003 This annual international conference is a forum for professionals involved in performance evaluation of computer and telecommunication systems. Evaluation of computer systems and networks is needed at every stage in the life cycle of the product including design, manufacturing, sales/purchase, use, upgrade, tuning, etc. The discipline of performance evaluation has progressed rapidly in the past decade, and it has now begun to approach maturity. Significant progress has been made in analytic modeling, simulation, and measurement approaches for performance evaluation of computer and telecommunication systems. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: Networking and Telecommunication Systems - Internet Technology - Quality of Service (QoS) - DiffServ/IntServ - MPLS - TCP - World Wide Web (WWW) Technology - Networking Techniques - Unicast and Multicast Routing - Congestion Control - Switching Techniques - Teletraffic - Network Protocols - Network Management and Control - Network Capacity Planning - Network Architecture Evaluation - Service and QoS Pricing - Security and Authentication -Broadband Networks - High-Speed Networking - ATM - Optical Networks - Wireless Systems and Networks - Satellite Systems - UMTS - Mobile Networks/Computing - Ad-hoc networks - Multimedia Communications Computer Systems - Distributed Architectures - Client/Server - Distributed Systems and Agents - Parallel and Distributed Computing - Massively Parallel Systems - Cluster Computing - Grid Computing - Interconnection Networks - Computer Architectures - Microprocessors/Microcomputers - Memory Systems - High Performance I/O - Real-time Systems - Scheduling Schemes -Software - Software Performance, Evaluation and Testing - Parallel Algorithms and Languages - Hardware and Software Monitors - High-Performance Computing - Workload and Traffic Characterization - Scientific Computing Algorithms - Reconfigurable Computing - Electronic Commerce Tools, Methodologies and Applications - Parallel and Distributed Simulation - Verification and Validation - Performance Tools and Methodologies - Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic Applications to High Performance Computing/Networking - Performance Optimization - Queueing Systems and Networks - Scalability Studies - Integrated Modeling and Measurement - On-Line Performance Adaptation and Tuning - Process Algebra-Based Models - Performance Bounds - Integrated Design and Performance - New Performance Models - Mathematical Aspects of Performance - New Performability Schemes and Models - Case Studies General Chair Mohammad S. Obaidat Dept. of Computer Science, Monmouth University W. Long Branch, NJ 07764, USA Tel +1-732-571-4482 Fax +1-732-263-5202 E-mail: obaidat@monmouth.edu Senior Program Chair Franco Davoli DIST-University of Genoa Via Opera Pia 13, I-16145 Genoa, Italy Tel +39-010-353-2732 Fax +39-010-353-2154 E-Mail: franco@dist.unige.it Program Co-Chairs Ibrahim Onyuksel Dept. of Computer Sciences, N. Illinois Univ., USA E-mail: onyuksel@cs.niu.edu Erina Ferro ISTI, Institute of National Research Council (C.N.R.) C.N.R. Pisa Research Area, Building B, Room 73 Via G. Moruzzi, 1 56124 Pisa, Italy E-mail: erina.ferro@cnuce.cnr.it Vice Program Chair and Tutorial Chair Raffaele Bolla DIST-University of Genoa Via Opera Pia 13, I-16145 Genoa, Italy E-mail: lelus@dist.unige.it Vice Program Chair and Web Master Imad Mahgoub Department of Computer Science and Engineering Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL 33431 E-mail: imad@cse.fau.edu Industrial Track and Special Sessions Chair J. Fox, Motorola Inc., UK E-mail: fox.ijcs@btinternet.com Technical Program Committee Ian Akyildiz, Georgia Tech., USA Mohammed Atiquzzaman, University of Oklahoma, USA Louis G. Birta, University of Ottawa, Canada Abdullah Abonamah, Zayed University, UAE Noureddine Boudriga, University of Tunis, Tunisia Hasan Cam, Arizona State University, USA Andrew Campbell, Columbia University, USA Nedo Celandroni, ISTI-CNR, Italy Haitham Cruickshank, University of Surrey, UK Hassan B. Diab, American University of Beirut, Lebanon Gabor Fodor, Ericsson Radio Systems, Sweden Geoffrey Fox, Indiana University, USA Luigi Fratta, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Aura Ganz, University of Massachusetts, USA Erol Gelenbe, University of Central Florida, USA Mario Gerla, UCLA, USA Sami Habib, Kuwait University, Kuwait Omar Hammami, ENSTA, France Jarmo Harju, Tampere University of Technology, Finland Herman Hughes, Michigan State University, USA Andrzej Jajszczyk, University of Mining and Metallurgy, Poland Abbas Jamalipour, University of Sydney, Australia Ingemar Kaj, Uppsala University, Sweden Krishna Kant, Intel, USA Helen Karatza, Aristotle University of Thessalonica, Greece Demetrios Kazakos, University of Louisiana, USA Ulrich Killat, Tech Univ. of Hamburg, Germany Tag Gon Kim, KAIST, Korea Kevin Kwiat, Air Force Research Laboratory, USA Veronica Lagrange M. Reis, Compaq Computers Corp., USA Axel Lehmann, Universit$BgU(B der Bundeswehr M$B!&(Bchen, Germany Daniel C. Lee, USC, USA Mike T. Liu, Ohio State University, USA Erich Lutz, DLR, Germany Sam Makki, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Krzysztof Malinowski, Warsaw Technical University, Poland Mario Marchese, University of Genoa, Italy Jose L. Marzo, Universitat de Girona, Spain Xiannong Meng, Bucknell University, USA Hussein Mouftah, Queen's University, Canada Mohamed Ould-Khaoua, University of Glasgow, UK Sergio Palazzo, Universit$B!&(Bdi Catania, Italy Georgios I. Papadimitriou, Aristotle University, Greece Achille Pattavina, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Krzysztof Pawlikowski, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Gregory D. Peterson, University of Tennessee Steven Pink, University of Arizona, USA George Polyzos, AUEB, Greece Ramon Puigjaner, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain Kaliappa Ravindran, CUNY, USA Gian Paolo Rossi, Universit$B!&(Bdi Milano, Italy Izhak Rubin, UCLA, USA Vicente Santonja, Technical University of Valencia, Spain Donald Schilling, CUNY, USA Jens B. Schmitt, TU Darmstadt, Germany Harald Skinnemoen, Nera, Norway Tatsuya Suda, UCI, USA Iwao Toda, Fujutsu Laboratories Ltd., Japan Phuoc Tran-Gia, University of Wuerzburg, Germany Kishor Trivedi, Duke University, USA Kenneth S. Vastola, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA Manuel Villen-Altamirano, Telefonica, Spain Bernd E. Wolfinger, Hamburg University, Germany Michele Zorzi, Universit$B!&(Bdi Ferrara, Italy Publicity Chair: Yuguang (Michael) Fang, University of Florida, USA Publicity Committee: Vice Chair: Jie Li, University of Tsukuba, Japan Chiara Petrioli, Universita` di Roma "La Sapienza", Italy Chuck Song, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Ahmed Nuseirat, Al-Isra University, Jordan International Liaisons B. Sadoun, Al-Balqa' Applied University, Jordan Bsadoun@go.com.jo M. Sawan, Montreal Poly, Canada Sawan@vlsi.polymtl.ca N. Tchamov, Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland Nikolay@cs.tut.fi Paper Submission Submit your complete papers electronically to: http://scs.proceedingscentral.com/ All required instructions will be posted on this web site. Submissions should not exceed 25 double-spaced, 8.5x11 inch pages (including figures, tables, and references) in 10-12 point font. Include five to ten keywords, complete postal and e-mail addresses, and fax and phone numbers of corresponding author. If you have difficulty in electronic submission, contact the Web Master, Program Chairs or the Conference Coordinator, Mr. Steve Branch, The Society for Modeling and Simulation International, 4838 Ronson Court, Suite L, San Diego, CA 92111, USA, Tel 858-277-3888, Fax 858-277-3930, E-mail sbranch@scs.org Extended versions of selected accepted papers in SPECTS 2003 will be considered for possible publication in scholarly journals. Proposals for tutorials should be sent to the Conference Vice Program Chair, Raffaele Bolla. Proposals for special sessions and panel sessions should be submitted to the special Sessions Chair. For more information regarding presentations or exhibitions at SPECTS 2002 contact: Mr. Steve Branch at the address shown above. Sponsored by The Society for Modeling and Simulation International. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 14 09:27:47 2003 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 JAA24989 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:27:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EEfv800649 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:41:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EEfvJ00646 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:41:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24985 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:27:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EEThJ31751; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:29:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EESxJ31714 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:28:59 -0500 Received: from amber.crhc.uiuc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24624 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:14:17 -0500 (EST) 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 IAA28696; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:17:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (nhv@localhost) by chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28881; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:17:37 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu: nhv owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:17:37 -0600 (CST) From: "Nitin H. Vaidya" To: Anders Lindgren cc: Joe Macker , MANET mailing list Subject: Re: [manet] General questions In-Reply-To: <20030107040028.Q50292-100000@dugdale.cdt.luth.se> Message-ID: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Anders: We have also implemented yet another hybrid network. The report is being revised presently to improve readability (though not by much -:) and we will make the revised report available this week through my web site www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nhv In our implementation, we limit the routes to contain at most K consecutive wireless hops before reaching an access point (or the destination). The motivation here is that for a "suitable" K one can reach most destinations, particularly, in campus environments, so the overhead can be kept low by bounding the connectivity provided by the network. (To put it differently, in many environments, a small K will result in low overhead but "almost" full connectivity -- the lost connectivity may be worth the reduction in overhead. One can always augment the protocol with special features to find rouets to certain specific destination, even if at high cost.) There is a paper by Towsley's UMass group in Infocom'03 that you may find interesting. - nitin On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Anders Lindgren wrote: . >>Joe, . >> . >>Glad to hear you found our work interesting. . >>Do you have any pointers to the other work you mention? It would be . >>interesting to look more into that. . >> . >>Regards, . >> . >>/Anders . >> . >>On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Joe Macker wrote: . >> . >>> At 03:25 PM 1/2/2003 +0100, Anders Lindgren wrote: . >>> >Ayman, . >>> > . >>> > . >>> >We have developed ISAIAH, a slight modification of AODV that works in a . >>> >scenario as the one you describe below (in our scenarios we do however . >>> >also assume that the fixed nodes have better power supplies than the . >>> >mobile nodes (they can e.g. be plugged into a power outlet)). . >>> > . >>> >We have a paper describing this protocol (BibTeX entry below), and it can . >>> >be found at my publications page at . >>> >http://www.sm.luth.se/~dugdale/index/publications.shtml . >>> . >>> Anders: . >>> . >>> That is interesting..we and others have proposed similar approaches for . >>> hybrid operation of existing protocols. Other slight additions to . >>> specifications such as OLSR and TBRPF (e.g., preferred router metrics) . >>> also make such infrastructured designs directly manageable. We have seen . >>> this as a practical approach that is likely very useful for potential . >>> community or campus type of deployments. . >>> . >>> -Joe . >>> . >>> _______________________________________________ . >>> 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 Tue Jan 14 11:12:05 2003 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 LAA00288 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EGQG909048 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:26:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EGQGJ09045 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:26:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00250 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:11:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EGE0J08058; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:14:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EGBOJ07958 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:11:25 -0500 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29660 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:56:42 -0500 (EST) 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 KAA29365; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:59:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SAVSMTP 3.0.1.45) with SMTP id M2003011410595301588 ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:59:53 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20030114105822.02b14740@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:59:59 -0500 To: "MEDDOUR Djamal Eddine thesard FTRD/DAC/LAN" , From: Joe Macker Subject: Re: [manet] Cross-compiler In-Reply-To: <0489A7888F080B4BA73B53F7E145F29ADE2E7D@lanmhs20.rd.francet elecom.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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Yes, gcc can handle it. Many of us of compiled manet protocols for ARM-based systems. www.handhelds.org or someplace like that can help you. -Joe At 09:45 AM 1/14/2003 +0100, MEDDOUR Djamal Eddine thesard FTRD/DAC/LAN wrote: >Hi everybody, >Is there here anyone who knows a cross-complier for ARM? > >Sincerely > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Jan 14 11:15:07 2003 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 LAA00649 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:15:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EGTIQ09740 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:29:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EGTIJ09735 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:29:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00612 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:14:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EGHFJ08245; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:17:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EGFuJ08146 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:15:56 -0500 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29773 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:01:14 -0500 (EST) 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 LAA29585; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:04:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SAVSMTP 3.0.1.45) with SMTP id M2003011411042418452 ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:04:24 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20030114110014.02c64d98@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:04:30 -0500 To: Anders Lindgren From: Joe Macker Subject: Re: [manet] General questions Cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030107040028.Q50292-100000@dugdale.cdt.luth.se> References: <5.1.1.5.2.20030106175248.02462ff0@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 11:12 AM 1/14/2003 +0100, Anders Lindgren wrote: >Joe, > >Glad to hear you found our work interesting. >Do you have any pointers to the other work you mention? It would be >interesting to look more into that. As mentioned, the two new proactive routing Internet Drafts (OLSR, TBRPF) have new features to allow one to manage such preferred router approaches within infrastructured manets. These were discussed at the last manet meeting. I think this is a very useful, practical feature. Perhaps you could look at that and give the WG any feedback/comments. -Joe _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 14 12:52:00 2003 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 MAA04717 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:52:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EI6DF17066 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:06:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EI6DJ17063 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:06:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04702 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:51:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EHqRJ16235; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:52:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EHoLJ16162 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:50:21 -0500 Received: from edgar1.colorado.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04215 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:35:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from colorado.edu (dialup-86-155.Colorado.EDU [128.138.86.155]) by edgar1.colorado.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id h0EHVOI16638; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:31:24 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3E244969.1070903@colorado.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:31:21 -0700 From: Shweta Bhandare Reply-To: Shweta.Bhandare@colorado.edu Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Macker CC: MEDDOUR Djamal Eddine thesard FTRD/DAC/LAN , manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] Cross-compiler References: <5.1.1.5.2.20030114105822.02b14740@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is a link to instructions http://www.handhelds.org/minihowto/building-x.html and this is the website for the toolchain I successfully cross compiled http://handhelds.org/download/toolchain/jacques/ Shweta. Joe Macker wrote: > Yes, gcc can handle it. Many of us of compiled manet protocols for ARM-based systems. > www.handhelds.org or someplace like that can help you. > > -Joe > > At 09:45 AM 1/14/2003 +0100, MEDDOUR Djamal Eddine thesard FTRD/DAC/LAN wrote: > >>Hi everybody, >>Is there here anyone who knows a cross-complier for ARM? >> >>Sincerely >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Tue Jan 14 12:52:42 2003 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 MAA04767 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:52:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EI6u817136 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:06:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EI6uJ17133 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:06:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04733 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:52:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EHs5J16317; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:54:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EHqkJ16252 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:52:46 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04266 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:38:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:39:45 -0800 Received: from 129.217.129.134 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:39:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [129.217.129.134] From: "ayman ghazi" To: manet@ietf.org Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:39:44 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2003 17:39:45.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED462740:01C2BBF3] Subject: [manet] DSR 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: ,



I would to ask iabout DSR Protcol, when a sender sends a Discovery messege to find a route to the destination, and the destination recieves this messge from many routes, so who will do decide which route is to be chossen the sender or  the destination ?, and does the destination reply for all route so the sender will have more information about the routes to the detination  especialy in case of need a redundant route ? ?

 

Ayman


MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 14 13:05:19 2003 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 NAA05136 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EIJXb18606 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:19:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EIJWJ18603 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:19:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05118 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EI6PJ17094; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:06:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EI52J17017 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:05:02 -0500 Received: from edgar1.colorado.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04679 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from colorado.edu (dialup-86-155.Colorado.EDU [128.138.86.155]) by edgar1.colorado.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id h0EHrYI09458; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:53:35 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3E244E9C.109@colorado.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:53:32 -0700 From: Shweta Bhandare Reply-To: Shweta.Bhandare@colorado.edu Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ayman ghazi CC: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] DSR References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The destination node sends route replies to all the route requests that it receives. The source node on receiving the route replies selects the min hop route - so the source node selects the route. The source node caches all the routes it receives and uses in case of a route error. Regards, Shweta. ayman ghazi wrote: > > > I would to ask iabout DSR Protcol, when a sender sends a Discovery > messege to find a route to the destination, and the destination recieves > this messge from many routes, so who will do decide which route is to be > chossen the sender or the destination ?, and does the destination reply > for all route so the sender will have more information about the routes > to the detination especialy in case of need a redundant route ? ? > > > > Ayman > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > > _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jan 14 13:05:32 2003 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 NAA05172 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:05:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EIJk518623 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:19:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EIJkJ18620 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:19:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05123 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:05:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EI87J17867; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:08:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EI7HJ17533 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:07:17 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04739 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:52:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:55:52 -0800 Received: from 68.82.176.144 by sea2fd.sea2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:55:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [68.82.176.144] From: "pradnya sheth" To: manet@ietf.org Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:25:52 +0530 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2003 17:55:52.0614 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DE53460:01C2BBF6] Subject: [manet] some queries regarding simulations done using glomosim( urgent) 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: ,
Hello,
 
        I am a graduate student and doing a project for comparing ad-hoc  protoccols using glomosim as the simulator. i have to compare them on the basis of acv end-to-end delay , goodput and overhead... i am comparing DSR and Lar1 .. by changing the parameters in the config.in file... i have taken cbr application for four different senders and four different receivers... eg of cbr that i have taken is
CBR 1 59 0 1460 2S 0S 599S.
i wanted to vary the load and wanted to know what various loads should i take for 50 nodes as well as 100 nodes during the simulation... when i ran the simulation for 50 nodes and given the above cbr application it sent 300 packets of 1460b each from sender to receiver during the simulation time... is this the maximum bandwidth that i can get... also how do i calculate overhead.. is it the no of control packets sent ... will anyone kindly give me some more info as to how to go about the simulations ...
 
regards
Pradnya..

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 14 14:17:29 2003 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 OAA08023 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:17:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EJVij23996 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:31:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EJViJ23993 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:31:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08005 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EJHxJ23103; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:17:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EJGXJ23021 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:16:33 -0500 Received: from smtpproxy2.mitre.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07269 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:01:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from avsrv1.mitre.org (avsrv1.mitre.org [129.83.20.58]) by smtpproxy2.mitre.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0EJ58V20406 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:05:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from MAILHUB1 (mailhub1.mitre.org [129.83.20.31]) by smtpsrv1.mitre.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0EJ57i23660 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:05:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from kb.mitre.org (129.83.65.31) by mailhub1.mitre.org with SMTP id 765017; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:05:01 -0500 Message-ID: <3E245EE7.63F04378@mitre.org> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:03:02 -0500 From: Kenneth Brayer Reply-To: kb@mitre.org Organization: The MITRE Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76C-20010313M (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0EJGXJ23022 Subject: [manet] CFP for JSAC Issue on QoS for Variable Topology Networks 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The deadline is approaching rapidly so I thought I would post this CFP again as a reminder that we are still open for papers. Call for Papers Quality of Service Delivery in Variable Topology Networks IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications Topics of keen interest today in networking technology include methods of delivering services over variable topology networks, such as variable point-to-point and Ad Hoc networks, in which the user is mobile and inter-router connections are time varying. We seek contributions that will be of value to system architects in selecting collections of technologies and methodologies that meet their needs and establish standards for user responsive system performance, and quality of service (QoS) that can be delivered over such networks. Contributions that report QoS delivery in clearly defined network settings under clearly defined metrics for a specific service or collection of services are of special interest. Submissions might focus specifically on comparing alternative technological or methodological approaches to delivering services with quality guarantee. Variable topology peer-to-peer and Ad Hoc constructions in both flat and hierarchical environments are of interest. Contribution might focus on the performance that can be achieved using a single technological and methodological approach, but varying key factors, such as the number of end systems, end-system density, or the delivery physical environment. Throughout, the central theme should be service delivery, and the metrics used should enable potential users to clearly see patterns of performance in one or more of the following dimensions: cost, complexity, timely delivery, traffic handling capacity, or the number of end systems the system can handle. Methods for achieving quality of service under conditions of varying topology, and new concepts for providing quality of service are likewise of interest. Original, unpublished contributions and invited articles will be considered for the issue. The call for papers is for extended abstracts that propose development of papers to meet the goals of the issue. The proposal shall comprehensively describe the area of the paper relative to the areas of interest of the call. These extended abstracts will be reviewed and the editors will invite final papers, which will be refereed. Instructions for submission can be found on the web at http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/J-SAC/Calls/variable_topology_qos.html. Topics For This Issue Include ß Variable point-to-point and Ad Hoc Routing including new methodologies, bi-directional vs. unidirectional connectivity, source based vs. dynamic routing, unicast vs. multicast, and content-based routing. ß Variable topology network architectures and reconfiguration techniques including flat vs. hierarchical organizations, proactive vs. reactive reconfiguration, MAC vs. upper layer implementations, self-configurations, and distributed algorithms (group and resource management). ß Quality of Service (QoS) delivery including methodologies for timely message delivery, predictable performance, error coding for achieving QoS, and methods of measuring QoS in operational networks. ß Performance analysis including comparative study (analysis, simulation, emulation and/or implementation), new analytical approaches, definition of performance metrics and optimizing the system performance (capacity, response time, throughput, etc.). ß Testbeds and applications including testbed descriptions and objectives, experimental results based on testbeds and unique applications of testbeds. ß Standards including definition of common and desirable features of standards, matching current and emerging standards to applications, and applications requirements versus features provided by standards. Timetable Extended Abstract Submission Deadline: April 1, 2003 Acceptance Notification of Proposed Paper: June 1, 2003 Submission of Invited Papers October 1, 2003 Acceptance Notification February 1, 2004 Final Revised Manuscript Due: March 1, 2004 Publication of issue: 3rd-4th Quarter 2004 Guest Editors Nicola Blefari-Melazzi, Università degli Studi di Roma - Tor Vergata, Italy, blefari@uniroma2.it Kenneth Brayer, The MITRE Corporation, USA, k.brayer@ieee.org John N. Daigle, The University of Mississippi, USA, wcdaigle@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu Jean-Yves Le Boudec, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland, jean-yves.leboudec@epfl.ch Bo Li, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China, bli@cs.ust.hk -- Kenneth Brayer M/S B312 The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road Bedford, MA 01730 e-mail: kb@mitre.org tele: 781-271-5254 fax: 781-271-2841 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 14 17:05:30 2003 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 RAA13434 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:05:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0EMJm006861 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:19:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0EMJmJ06858 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:19:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13420 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:04:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0ELxnJ04677; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:59:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0ELvIJ04564 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:57:18 -0500 Received: from cs.uoregon.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12623 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:42:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ix.cs.uoregon.edu (manoj@ix.cs.uoregon.edu [128.223.4.21]) by cs.uoregon.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h0ELjmj28585; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:45:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:45:48 -0800 (PST) From: manoj pandey To: pradnya sheth cc: Subject: Re: [manet] some queries regarding simulations done using glomosim( urgent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , hi Pradnya there are many ways of varying the load -increase the number of source/receiver nodes in the simulation -increase the speed of mobile nodes -increase the frequency of the CBR/packet size of the CBR [e.g. 1460 adn 2S in your example] the channel capacity is limited (i am not sure, but i guess it is 2Mbps) I can think of two ways to estimate overhead in GLOMOSIM, 1. go to the protocol file e.g. dsr.pc and add a member called overhead to the DSR_Stats structure and which in the end (call of RoutingDsrFinalize()) estimates (say) the ratio of control bytes and total bytes (data bytes and control bytes), which you can estimate using data members like numReplySent, numDataTxed etc. 2. write a script (python/perl) which reads output from the .stat file and estimates the above ratio. hope this was ur request :-) thnx, ****************************** Manoj Pandey, PhD student, #226, Deschutes, Computer and Information Science, University of Oregon, Phone# 541-346-1381 [Office], www.cs.uoregon.edu/~manoj ****************************** On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, pradnya sheth wrote: > Hello, > > I am a graduate student and doing a project for comparing ad-hoc protoccols using glomosim as the simulator. i have to compare them on the > basis of acv end-to-end delay , goodput and overhead... i am comparing DSR and Lar1 .. by changing the parameters in the config.in file... i have > taken cbr application for four different senders and four different receivers... eg of cbr that i have taken is > CBR 1 59 0 1460 2S 0S 599S. > i wanted to vary the load and wanted to know what various loads should i take for 50 nodes as well as 100 nodes during the simulation... when i ran > the simulation for 50 nodes and given the above cbr application it sent 300 packets of 1460b each from sender to receiver during the simulation > time... is this the maximum bandwidth that i can get... also how do i calculate overhead.. is it the no of control packets sent ... will anyone > kindly give me some more info as to how to go about the simulations ... > > regards > Pradnya.. > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*. _______________________________________________ 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 Jan 15 05:00:36 2003 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 FAA21403 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 05:00:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0FAF8s29119 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 05:15:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FAF8J29116 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 05:15:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21393 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 05:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FA1BJ27740; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 05:01:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0F9rwJ27316 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:53:58 -0500 Received: from torvalds.yeditepe.edu.tr (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA20990 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:38:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ozcan ([212.50.60.130]) by torvalds.yeditepe.edu.tr (Merak 4.4.2) with ESMTP id 3952FF7C for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:24:22 +0200 From: "Ozcan YILDIZ" To: Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:41:37 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c2bcce$1e1235f0$4e1e010a@ozcan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C2BC8B.0FEEF5F0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3663.0 Subject: [manet] CRC and input errors in ATM 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C2BC8B.0FEEF5F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi; I have configured ATM VC`s with ISP and it is working properly, but when I look at ATM interface, I can examine that CRC errors and input errors occur, I also find out that both input errors and CRC errors increasing periodically. Any idea? ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C2BC8B.0FEEF5F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi;

 

I have configured ATM VC`s with ISP and it is working properly, but when I look at ATM interface, I can = examine that  CRC errors and input = errors occur, I also find out that both input errors and CRC errors increasing periodically.

 

Any = idea?

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C2BC8B.0FEEF5F0-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 15 07:45:36 2003 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 HAA24054 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:45:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0FD0Cm06824 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:00:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FD0CJ06821 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:00:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA24044 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FCoAJ06438; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:50:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FCltJ06348 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:47:55 -0500 Received: from m1.cs.man.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23882 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:32:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhost by m1.cs.man.ac.uk (8.8.8/AL/MJK-2.0) id MAA24691; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:36:07 GMT Received: from rms223.oak.man.ac.uk ([130.88.226.154]) by mailhost with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18Ymm6-00043R-00 for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:36:06 +0000 From: John Tapsell Reply-To: tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] key management Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:34:09 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <20030113153917.6679.qmail@web14612.mail.yahoo.com> <3E232066.8000105@cs.uiuc.edu> <20030114070830.GC20906@orca.informatik.uni-ulm.de> In-Reply-To: <20030114070830.GC20906@orca.informatik.uni-ulm.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200301151234.10664.tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit By key management, are we talking about, for an example, a central pgp server signing others pgp keys? If so, you can have distributed authorited servers.. John On Tuesday 14 January 2003 7:08 am, Stefan Schlott wrote: > > Mainly three reasons I can think of: > > > > 1. Security > > 2. Fault Tolerance > > 3. Availability > > Hmm. What did I miss? > > I would add > > 4. Missing infrastructure - in some ad-hoc scenarios, the network is formed > spontaneously, with no dedicated server/master. Who should do the key > management here? Does everyone trust this entity? What if the elected key > server quits the net? > Stefan. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 15 17:14:50 2003 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 RAA11865 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:14:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0FMTbv14799 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:29:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMTbJ14796 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:29:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11846 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:14:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMIMJ14134; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:18:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DCj9J21307 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 07:45:09 -0500 Received: from mpls-qmqp-03.inet.qwest.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA09443 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 07:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 40725 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jan 2003 12:29:47 -0000 Received: from mpls-pop-11.inet.qwest.net (63.231.195.11) by mpls-qmqp-03.inet.qwest.net with QMQP; 13 Jan 2003 12:29:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO JEFFFUJITSU) (211.106.40.109) by mpls-pop-11.inet.qwest.net with SMTP; 13 Jan 2003 12:34:13 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 21:37:44 +0900 Message-ID: From: "Jeff Boleng" To: "Mingyan Liu" , manet@ietf.org Cc: "Tracy Camp" , jeff@boleng.com Subject: RE: [manet] random waypoint model MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interesting paper, and a very thorough treatment of the topic. I am compelled to point out a few things (possibly a type of rebuttal). Not everyone assumes that the Random Waypoint Model must range speed in (0,Vmax]. In fact, all our research ranges speed in [Vmin, Vmax] when we use the Random Waypoint. Furthermore, we usually keep Vmin and Vmax within ten percent of Vavg. We have never published a result using 0 as Vmin for all velocity cases. Very early on in our research we realized that setdest wouldn't work for us. We developed our own mobility generator (called mobgen) which allows much more flexibility, and avoids the problem of all nodes being paused for seconds at the beginning of the simulation. This code is available to everyone, and we have distributed it widely since our WCMC journal paper, which you cite. I should also not that your references [1], [2], [3], and [4] are not the only comparisons of MANET protocols. In fact there is an important paper from Mobicom '99 by Per Johansson et al, and our work from Infocom: T. Camp, J. Boleng, B. Williams, L. Wilcox, and W. Navidi, Performance Comparison of Two Location Based Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of the IEEE Infocom, pp.1678-1687, 2002 available at http://toilers.mines.edu/papers/Infocom02.pdf. In this paper, as our others, we use a speed of +/- 10% of Vavg and the random waypoint mobility model. We also simulate 2000 seconds of operation and discard the first 1000 seconds as has been standard practice for us for some time. I have other comments on your paper but will not include everything here. Please contact me if you are interested. One final thing is to answer your summary of our WCMC paper on mobility models. Figure 4 in our paper (your reference [7]) does not show "a stable mean but an increased variance over larger time scales", and cannot be "suggestive of decreased movement of nodes..." because we don't use zero as Vmin. In fact, for this plot, speed ranged from 9-11 with a mean of 10. We use this figure as an example of why we discard initial time in the simulation. In essence, we "warm-up" the simulation. The necessity to do this was first discovered after discussions with Dr. Royer at a conference, but is related to the reasons outlined in your references [6] and [9]. We are quite clear about our simulation parameters in all our papers, and a careful reading will reveal that our speed ranges between [Vmin,Vmax] where Vmin=0.9*Vavg and Vmax=1.1*Vavg. Respectfully, Jeff Boleng jeff@boleng.com -----Original Message----- From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Mingyan Liu Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 12:59 PM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] random waypoint model Hi, You may be interested in our recent paper on the random waypoint model that is going to appear in Infocom 2003: http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~mingyan/pub/random-waypoint.pdf Abstract -- This study examines the random waypoint model widely used in the simulation studies of mobile ad hoc networks. Our findings show that this model fails to provide a steady state in that the average nodal speed consistently decreases over time, and therefore should not be directly used for simulation. We show how unreliable results can be obtained by using this model. In particular, certain ad hoc routing metrics can drop by as much as 40% over the course of a 900-second simulation using the random waypoint model. We give both an intuitive and a formal explanation for this phenomenon. We also propose a simple fix of the problem and discuss a few alternatives. Our modified random waypoint model is able to reach a steady state and simulation results are presented. -mingyan _______________________________________________ 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 Jan 15 17:18:18 2003 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 RAA12025 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:18:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0FMX5A15229 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:33:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMWwJ15223 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:32:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12008 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMNpJ14492; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:23:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h03GCnJ02838 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:12:49 -0500 Received: from gandalf.icr.a-star.edu.sg (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11926 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:03:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg (gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg [137.132.31.253]) by gandalf.icr.a-star.edu.sg (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h03G7VXw027993 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 00:07:31 +0800 (SGT) Received: from Ring (dial63-43.dialup.nus.edu.sg [137.132.63.43]) by gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 00:01:22 +0800 Message-ID: <007601c2b343$7b6ce4f0$2b3f8489@Ring> From: "Paul Tan" To: "Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001" , "'Sumeeth Nagaraj'" , "Sachin Ganu" , "Grzegorz Banasiak" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [manet] RTS/CTS in wireless MAC Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 00:16:31 +0800 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, in WLAN, collision detection is not possible due to what is know as the "near/far" problem. To detect a collision, a station must be able to transmit and listen at the same time. For this reason, 802.11 uses a different protocol known as Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) or the Distributed Coordination Function (DCF). CSMA/CA attempts to avoid packet collisions by using explicit packet acknowledgement (ACK), which means that an ACK packet is sent by the receiving station to confirm that a packet arrived intact. CSMA/CA works by having the station that wishes to transmit senses the channel and if there is no activity detected, the station will wait an additional random period of time (DIFS) and if there still is no activity, it will transmit the data. If the packet is received intact (checksum), the receiving station will send and ACK frame that once it is received by the original sender the transmission is complete. If the ACK command is not received in a specified random period of time, the data packet will be resent, assuming that the original packet experienced a collision. By telling the card to go into "promiscuous mode", all traffic seen is passed to the operating system. On a shared media network, this lets a station to spy on every packet traversing the 'air'. Yes, you can still tx/rx data. Cheers, Paul Tan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001" To: "'Sumeeth Nagaraj'" ; "Sachin Ganu" ; "Grzegorz Banasiak" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:30 AM Subject: RE: [manet] RTS/CTS in wireless MAC > > So then how can the receiver knows if there is a collosion? Does it just check > the "checksum" of the data packet? Another question. If the wireless LAN i/f > (i.e. waveLan) is put into promiscuous mode, it can receive all data > transmissions that reach it. But can it also send data (in promiscuous mode) > when it is not receiving data? > > Thank in advance. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sumeeth Nagaraj [mailto:snagaraj@cc.usu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2002 7:31 > To: Sachin Ganu; Grzegorz Banasiak > Cc: manet@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [manet] RTS/CTS in wireless MAC > > > CSMA/ CD is used in the Ethernet, Collision Detection is not possible > because of the Half-Duplex nature of the nodes. The wireless nodes can > either transmit or receive and hence cannot detect collisions at the > destination(receiver). CSMA/CA is used and not CSMA/CD. > > Best Regards, > Sumeeth > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 15 17:18:24 2003 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 RAA12046 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0FMXBk15248 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:33:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMXBJ15245 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:33:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12017 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMNEJ14405; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:23:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBI0R2v15589 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:27:02 -0500 Received: from coe.drexel.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27511 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:23:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from discover (discover.mcs.drexel.edu [129.25.4.148]) by coe.drexel.edu (8.11.6/8.11.4) with SMTP id gBI0QU106533 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:26:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <021b01c2a62c$48d70c60$94041981@mcs.drexel.edu> From: "Harpreet S. Arora" To: References: <15864.52776.279000.257414@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:27:44 -0500 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 5.50.4920.2300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Manet Applications 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I am looking for literature on commercial and defense applications of MANETs. Most of the papers currently show simulation results based on the random way-point model, which might not be an accurate modelling of the real life applications. Are there more accurate mobility models available? Can anyone please guide me to literature on the related fields? Thanks, Harpreet _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 15 17:36:24 2003 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 RAA12777 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0FMpCj17159 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:51:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMpCJ17156 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:51:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12741 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:35:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMdRJ16306; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:39:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMcSJ16254 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:38:28 -0500 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12277 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:23:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from vivi.cc.vt.edu (IDENT:mirapoint@vivi-lb.cc.vt.edu [10.1.1.12]) by lennier.cc.vt.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0FMQUL79187; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:26:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ari424h (ari424-h.ari.vt.edu [208.17.194.135]) by vivi.cc.vt.edu (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with SMTP id ASE30194; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:26:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Kaustubh Phanse" To: "Harpreet S. Arora" , Subject: RE: [manet] Manet Applications Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:32:33 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: <021b01c2a62c$48d70c60$94041981@mcs.drexel.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Harpreet, Here are a couple of good papers on the study of mobility models: T. Camp, J. Boleng, and V. Davies, A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network Research, Wireless Communication & Mobile Computing (WCMC): Special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking: Research, Trends and Applications, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 483-502, 2002 C. Bettstetter. ”Mobility Modeling in Wireless Networks: Categorization, Smooth Movement, and Border Effects,” ACM Mobile Computing and Communications Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 2001. regards Kaustubh -----Original Message----- From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Harpreet S. Arora Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 7:28 PM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Manet Applications Hi, I am looking for literature on commercial and defense applications of MANETs. Most of the papers currently show simulation results based on the random way-point model, which might not be an accurate modelling of the real life applications. Are there more accurate mobility models available? Can anyone please guide me to literature on the related fields? Thanks, Harpreet _______________________________________________ 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 Jan 15 17:59:06 2003 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 RAA13553 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:59:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0FNDs819183 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:13:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FNDsJ19180 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:13:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13547 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:58:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMqXJ17288; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:52:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMpJJ17194 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:51:19 -0500 Received: from smtp1.opnet.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12766 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:36:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from wtn11055.opnet.com (unverified) by smtp1.opnet.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:39:14 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030115173156.040d8118@mail.opnet.com> X-Sender: jlee@mail.opnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:39:14 -0500 To: manet@ietf.org From: Jay J Lee Subject: Re: [manet] Manet Applications In-Reply-To: <021b01c2a62c$48d70c60$94041981@mcs.drexel.edu> References: <15864.52776.279000.257414@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I don't know about literature but there is a company that developed router that supports MANET TORA protocol. Check there website if you are interested. Go to "/www.nova-eng.com/" and look for NoavRoam routers. - Jay At 07:27 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Hi, > >I am looking for literature on commercial and defense applications of >MANETs. Most of the papers currently show simulation results based on the >random way-point model, which might not be an accurate modelling of the real >life applications. Are there more accurate mobility models available? Can >anyone please guide me to literature on the related fields? > >Thanks, >Harpreet > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jan 15 18:07:21 2003 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 SAA13803 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:07:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0FNMAd19587 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:22:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FNM9J19584 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:22:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13779 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:06:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FNBaJ19040; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:11:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FNAwJ18982 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:10:58 -0500 Received: from memphis.ece.cornell.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13493 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:55:38 -0500 (EST) From: haas@ece.cornell.edu Received: from verdi.ece.cornell.edu (verdi.ece.cornell.edu [128.84.210.27]) by memphis.ece.cornell.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0FMww613651; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:58:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:58:24 -0500 (EST) To: Kaustubh Phanse cc: "Harpreet S. Arora" , manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] Manet Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 h0FNAwJ18983 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit And another one ... B. Liang and Z.J. Haas, "Predictive Distance-Based Mobility Management for PCS Networks," IEEE INFOCOM'99, New York City, NY, March 21-25, 1999 (full version will soon appear in ACM/IEEE Transactions on Networking). ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Prof. Zygmunt J. Haas http://people.ece.cornell.edu/haas Wireless Networks Laboratory http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu School of Electrical Engineering Cornell University tel: +1-607-255-3454 323 Frank Rhodes Hall fax: +1-607-255-9072 Ithaca, NY 14853 e-mail: haas@ece.cornell.edu U.S.A WNL web page: http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Kaustubh Phanse wrote: > Harpreet, > > Here are a couple of good papers on the study of mobility models: > > T. Camp, J. Boleng, and V. Davies, A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc > Network Research, Wireless Communication & Mobile Computing (WCMC): > Special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking: Research, Trends and > Applications, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 483-502, 2002 > > C. Bettstetter. ”Mobility Modeling in Wireless Networks: Categorization, > Smooth Movement, and Border Effects,” ACM Mobile Computing and > Communications Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 2001. > > regards > Kaustubh _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 15 18:22:49 2003 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 SAA14373 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0FNbcs21291 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:37:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FNbcJ21288 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:37:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14347 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:22:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FNRpJ19955; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:27:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FNQVJ19871 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:26:31 -0500 Received: from edgar1.colorado.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13997 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:11:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from colorado.edu (ecee189-10-dhcp.Colorado.EDU [128.138.189.10]) by edgar1.colorado.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id h0FNEQI14073; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:14:26 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3E25EB50.1050701@colorado.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:14:24 -0700 From: Shweta Bhandare Reply-To: Shweta.Bhandare@colorado.edu Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk, manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] key management References: <20030113153917.6679.qmail@web14612.mail.yahoo.com> <3E232066.8000105@cs.uiuc.edu> <20030114070830.GC20906@orca.informatik.uni-ulm.de> <200301151234.10664.tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is Manet Key Management centralized or distributed, public key or not, etc. Can anyone give me pointers to find information in this context? Thanks, Shweta _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 15 18:50:59 2003 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 SAA15019 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0G05mv22744 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:05:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G05mJ22741 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:05:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15016 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:50:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FNneJ21945; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:49:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FNmLJ21877 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:48:21 -0500 Received: from SMTP1.ECE.NEU.EDU (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14638 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:33:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from calvin.ece.neu.edu (calvin.ece.neu.edu [129.10.62.61]) by SMTP1.ECE.NEU.EDU (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id h0FNaCMf019935; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:36:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from bibbiena.ece.neu.edu ([129.10.60.216]) by calvin.ece.neu.edu (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003011518362122063 ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:36:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (basagni@localhost) by bibbiena.ece.neu.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h0FNaLF18873; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:36:21 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: bibbiena.ece.neu.edu: basagni owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:36:21 -0500 (EST) From: Stefano Basagni X-X-Sender: basagni@bibbiena To: Shweta Bhandare cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] key management In-Reply-To: <3E25EB50.1050701@colorado.edu> Message-ID: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Is Manet Key Management centralized or distributed, public key or not, > etc. Can anyone give me pointers to find information in this context? Something on ad hoc key management has been discussed in: @InProceedings{Pebblenets, author = {Basagni, S. and Herrin, K. and Bruschi, D. and Rosti, E.}, title = {Secure Pebblenet}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2001 ACM Iternational Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking \& Computing, MobiHoc 2001}, pages = {156--163}, year = {2001}, address = {Long Beach, CA}, month = {October 4--5} } Hope this helps. St. -- Stefano Basagni, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Computer Engineering Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering 312 Dana Research Center Northeastern University 360 Huntigton Ave. Boston, MA 02115 Tel. 617 373 3061, Fax 617 373 8970 E-mail: basagni@ece.neu.edu _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 15 19:17:49 2003 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 TAA15637 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0G0WeY24652 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:32:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G0WeJ24649 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:32:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15621 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:17:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G0NmJ24244; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:23:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G0LnJ24145 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:21:49 -0500 Received: from sccimhc01.insightbb.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15391 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:06:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from oracle ([12.221.68.213]) by sccimhc01.insightbb.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20030116000950.UNWR5831.sccimhc01.insightbb.com@oracle>; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 00:09:50 +0000 Message-ID: <003101c2bcf3$9582d750$0101a8c0@oracle> From: "Seung Yi" To: Cc: References: <20030113153917.6679.qmail@web14612.mail.yahoo.com> <3E232066.8000105@cs.uiuc.edu> <20030114070830.GC20906@orca.informatik.uni-ulm.de> <200301151234.10664.tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> <3E25EB50.1050701@colorado.edu> Subject: Re: [manet] key management Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:08:44 -0600 Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shweta Bhandare" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [manet] key management > Is Manet Key Management centralized or distributed, public key or not, > etc. Can anyone give me pointers to find information in this context? > > Thanks, > Shweta > > We have a extended version of last year's ICNP presentation in a technical report. Key Management for Heterogeneous Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Seung Yi, Robin Kravets Poster Presentation, 10th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP 2002) Detailed version is available as a technical report UIUCDCS-R-2002-2290 Should be enough as a starting point. Regards, - Seung _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 15 19:54:34 2003 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 TAA16514 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0G19Pb28595 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:09:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G19PJ28592 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:09:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16510 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:54:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G0xAJ26676; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:59:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G0vtJ26628 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:57:55 -0500 Received: from engr.UVic.CA (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16237 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:42:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ece.uvic.ca (muller.ece [142.104.115.126]) by engr.UVic.CA (8.11.1/8.11.1-Engr.UVic.CA-L) with ESMTP id h0G0f3E01189; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:41:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3E25FFEA.3562658E@ece.uvic.ca> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:42:18 -0800 From: Caner Budakoglu Organization: University of Victoria, Dept. of Electrical &Computer Eng. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.8 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: zh, zh-CN, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shweta.Bhandare@colorado.edu CC: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] key management References: <20030113153917.6679.qmail@web14612.mail.yahoo.com> <3E232066.8000105@cs.uiuc.edu> <20030114070830.GC20906@orca.informatik.uni-ulm.de> <200301151234.10664.tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> <3E25EB50.1050701@colorado.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Sweta, There are some other solutions for key management in Ad-Hoc Networks.The complete survey-analysis for key management solutions can be found in the following Master Thesis: "Key management in Ad Hoc Networks" Klas Fokine, September,2002 www.ep.liu.se/exjobb/isy/2002/3322/exjobb.pdf Caner Shweta Bhandare wrote: > > Is Manet Key Management centralized or distributed, public key or not, > etc. Can anyone give me pointers to find information in this context? > > Thanks, > Shweta > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 16 02:32:39 2003 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 CAA03778 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:32:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0G7lch29713 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:47:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G7lcJ29710 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:47:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03766 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G7c4J29218; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:38:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G7ZSJ28441 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:35:28 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA03572 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 19206 invoked by uid 417); 16 Jan 2003 07:23:19 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 16 Jan 2003 07:23:19 -0000 Received: from ankur ([203.94.199.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN ankurjain@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 00:23:13 -0700 Message-ID: <010801c2bd30$e38acec0$2af15ecb@ankur> Reply-To: "Ankur Jain" From: "Ankur Jain" To: "Harpreet S. Arora" , manet@ietf.org References: <15864.52776.279000.257414@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <021b01c2a62c$48d70c60$94041981@mcs.drexel.edu> Subject: Re: [manet] Manet Applications Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:46:26 +0530 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Harpreet, If you are looking for some other mobility models, there is a generator BonnMotion which also generates scenario files compatible to ns2. I think their model is good and can defintely be used for commercial applications. Regarding defense apps, one has to make lots of assumptions which 'may not' be able to model correctly using any currently available models. Hope it helps. Regards Ankur ----- Original Message ----- From: Harpreet S. Arora To: Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:57 AM Subject: [manet] Manet Applications > Hi, > > I am looking for literature on commercial and defense applications of > MANETs. Most of the papers currently show simulation results based on the > random way-point model, which might not be an accurate modelling of the real > life applications. Are there more accurate mobility models available? Can > anyone please guide me to literature on the related fields? > > Thanks, > Harpreet > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 16 05:28:29 2003 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 FAA06289 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 05:28:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0GAhXi09632 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 05:43:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GAhXJ09629 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 05:43:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06282 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 05:27:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GAXbJ08448; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 05:33:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GAQ7J08152 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 05:26:07 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06020 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 05:10:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:13:55 -0800 Received: from 163.121.64.182 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:13:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [163.121.64.182] From: "reham elmayet" To: manet@ietf.org Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:13:55 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2003 10:13:55.0570 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA136D20:01C2BD47] 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: ,

thank you


The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 16 08:15:39 2003 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 IAA09447 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:15:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0GDUj620785 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:30:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GDUjJ20782 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:30:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09420 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:15:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GD9lJ19191; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:09:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GD5fJ18428 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:05:41 -0500 Received: from smtp.web.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08466 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 07:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [134.102.101.207] (helo=MIPNET) by smtp.web.de with smtp (WEB.DE(Exim) 4.93 #1) id 18Z9WO-00025r-00 for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:53:24 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c2bd5e$9488e450$cf656686@MIPNET> From: "Michael Sessinghaus" To: Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:55:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C2BD66.F4E30DF0" 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] discussion: rfc status only for aodv and dsr? 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C2BD66.F4E30DF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, i have heard about discussion in manet list to assign the rfc status = only for aodv and dsr protocol. And a statement to close the MANET working group. Please could anyone give me a link to discussion results? Thanks. Michael. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C2BD66.F4E30DF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
i have heard about discussion in manet = list to=20 assign the rfc status only for aodv and dsr protocol.
And a statement to close the MANET = working=20 group.
Please could anyone give me a link to = discussion=20 results?
 
Thanks. = Michael.
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C2BD66.F4E30DF0-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 16 11:27:09 2003 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 LAA15298 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:27:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0GGgJp03298 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:42:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GGgJJ03295 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:42:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15274 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:26:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GGWeJ02003; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:32:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GGSfJ01807 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:28:41 -0500 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14926 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:12:58 -0500 (EST) 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 LAA13454; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:16:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SAVSMTP 3.0.1.45) with SMTP id M2003011611161622084 ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:16:16 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20030116111054.028eaaa8@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:16:11 -0500 To: "Michael Sessinghaus" , From: Joe Macker Subject: Re: [manet] discussion: rfc status only for aodv and dsr? In-Reply-To: <001201c2bd5e$9488e450$cf656686@MIPNET> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Please read the minutes and presentations at www.ietf.org from the last meeting if you want to get an accurate picture. There is a rechartering process underway. We are targeting some EXPERIMENTAL RFC goals for several reactive and proactive protocols (more than AODV and DSR)....and the WG would then scope down (better problem statements) on further work with a common engineering perspective. A research-oriented (IRTF) manet are is also established for investigating several areas considered less mature in terms of manet design..... PLEASE READ THE MINUTES... At 01:55 PM 1/16/2003 +0100, Michael Sessinghaus wrote: >Hi, >i have heard about discussion in manet list to assign the rfc status only for aodv and dsr protocol. >And a statement to close the MANET working group. >Please could anyone give me a link to discussion results? > >Thanks. Michael. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 16 12:42:19 2003 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 MAA17475 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:42:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0GHvUn08667 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:57:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHvUJ08664 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:57:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17465 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:41:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHmCJ08025; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:48:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHiXJ07838 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:44:33 -0500 Received: from waffle.cs.dal.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16977 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:28:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from localhost user: 'zhen', uid#1728) by waffle.cs.dal.ca with ESMTP id ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:31:53 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:31:53 -0400 (AST) From: Zhen X-X-Sender: zhen@locutus To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] SAODV 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , hello, while reading SAODV, I can't understand the digital signature part very well. The second signature is signed by source or destination? If it is by the source, how come to prevent intermediate nodes from spoofing to be the distination? thanks for any help Zhen _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 16 12:44:58 2003 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 MAA17539 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:44:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0GI09I08827 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:00:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GI09J08824 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:00:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17520 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:44:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHpCJ08229; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:51:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHlTJ07991 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:47:29 -0500 Received: from web8204.mail.in.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA17092 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:31:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030116173507.58990.qmail@web8204.mail.in.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.162.254.155] by web8204.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:35:07 GMT Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:35:07 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?arunachalam=20srinivas?= To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] too many 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, I am very confused about which protocols are good and which are not so good. There are several issues to be dealt with, like multicasting, Qos .. And there are too many protocols to deal with. How does one cope with such huge outburst of protocols? Any help in how to go about will be greatly appreciated. thanks, Arunachalam. ________________________________________________________________________ Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV. visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 16 12:46:15 2003 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 MAA17587 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0GI1R608942 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:01:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GI1RJ08939 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:01:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17576 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:45:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHiuJ07860; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:44:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHfKJ07727 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:41:20 -0500 Received: from web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA16869 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:25:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030116172858.93730.qmail@web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.162.254.155] by web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:28:58 GMT Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:28:58 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?arunachalam=20srinivas?= To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ________________________________________________________________________ Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV. visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 16 13:42:47 2003 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 NAA20024 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:42:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0GIw0l13938 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:58:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GIw0J13935 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:58:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20002 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:42:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GIaYJ11898; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:36:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GIVKJ11586 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:31:20 -0500 Received: from gto-mailer1.bbn.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18772 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from 78-RC321.bbn.com (dhcp069-090.bbn.com [128.89.69.90]) by gto-mailer1.bbn.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13904; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:18:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030116131550.02df34b8@po2.bbn.com> X-Sender: celliott@po2.bbn.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:17:30 -0500 To: arunachalam srinivas , manet@ietf.org From: Chip Elliott Subject: Re: [manet] too many protocols In-Reply-To: <20030116173507.58990.qmail@web8204.mail.in.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > There are several issues to be dealt > with, like multicasting, Qos .. And there are too >many > protocols to deal with. How does one cope with such >huge > outburst of protocols? Invent a few of your own and submit for publication ;-) _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 16 15:06:30 2003 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 PAA22514 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:06:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0GKLjp19867 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:21:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GKLjJ19864 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:21:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22503 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:05:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GKArJ19325; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:10:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GK4MJ18438 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:04:22 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22039 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:48:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0GJptJH006879 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:51:55 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:51:54 -0400 From: zhen To: manet@ietf.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Message-ID: <3E3A387B@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] SAODV(corrected) 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hello, while reading SAODV, I can't understand the digital signature part very well. The second signature is signed by source or destination? If it is by the source, how come to prevent intermediate nodes from spoofing to have a route to the distination? thanks for any help Zhen _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 16 18:09:13 2003 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 SAA26229 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:09:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0GNOUV32099 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:24:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GNOUJ32096 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:24:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26226 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:08:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GN6gJ30727; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:06:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GN0nJ30491 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:00:49 -0500 Received: from SMTP1.ECE.NEU.EDU (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25843 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:44:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from calvin.ece.neu.edu (calvin.ece.neu.edu [129.10.62.61]) by SMTP1.ECE.NEU.EDU (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id h0GMmLrw023856 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:48:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from bibbiena.ece.neu.edu ([129.10.60.216]) by calvin.ece.neu.edu (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003011617482125381 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:48:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (basagni@localhost) by bibbiena.ece.neu.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h0GMmL919590 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:48:21 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: bibbiena.ece.neu.edu: basagni owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:48:21 -0500 (EST) From: Stefano Basagni X-X-Sender: basagni@bibbiena To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] IEEE PERCOM 2003, Call for Part. 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , We apologize for multiple copies of this CfPart. ---------------------------------------------------- PerCom 2003 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications ---------------------------------------------------- Dallas - Fort Worth, Texas, March 23-26, 2003 *** VISIT THE WEB PAGE FOR THE ADVANCE PROGRAM AND REGISTRATION DETAILS *** http://www.PerCom.org ---------------------------------------------------- Co-sponsors: IEEE Computer Society and The University of Texas at Arlington ***************************************************** CALL FOR PARTICIPATION ***************************************************** Conference Scope: Pervasive computing and communications is emerging as an exciting new paradigm with a goal to provide computing and communication services all the time, everywhere. This emergence is a natural outcome of research and technological advances in wireless networks, mobile computing, distributed computing and agent technologies. PerCom is the annual IEEE conference on pervasive computing and communications and as such it will provide a high profile, leading edge forum for researchers and engineers alike to present their latest advances in the field of pervasive computing and communications. PerCom2003 will also feature special tracks on intelligent environments and mobile agents, as well as 2 keynote addresses and 2 panels on exciting topics. Program Highlights ? 53 Full Papers ? 11 Short Papers ? 2 Keynote Addresses ? 2 Panels ? 4 Tutorials ? Demonstrations Important Dates ? Advance Registration February 28, 2003 ? Demonstration Proposals January 31, 2003 ? Conference Dates March 23-26, 2003 General Chair: Behrooz A. Shirazi (UTA) General Vice Chair: Sajal K. Das (UTA) Technical Program Committee Chair and Contact Person: Mohan Kumar University of Texas at Arlington Box 19015, Arlington TX 76019-0015 Phone: 817 272 3610, Fax: 817 272 3784 Email: kumar@cse.uta.edu Special Track Chairs: Diane Cook (UTA) for Intelligent Environments Anand Tripathi (Uni. Minnesota) for Mobile Agents Local Organization and Registrations Chair: Gergely Zaruba (UTA) -- Stefano Basagni, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Computer Engineering Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering 312 Dana Research Center Northeastern University 360 Huntigton Ave. Boston, MA 02115 Tel. 617 373 3061, Fax 617 373 8970 E-mail: basagni@ece.neu.edu _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 17 01:25:15 2003 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 BAA03624 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:25:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0H6ef824893 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:40:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0H6efJ24890 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:40:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03618 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:24:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0H6PWJ23647; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:25:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0H6J9J23401 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:19:09 -0500 Received: from maredsous.cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03286 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by maredsous.cs.rice.edu id h0H66ZG26589; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:06:35 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:06:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <200301170606.h0H66ZG26589@maredsous.cs.rice.edu> From: Dave Johnson To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] CFP: MobiCom 2003 -- Papers due March 5, 2003 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , CALL FOR PAPERS MobiCom 2003 The Ninth Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking September 14-19, 2003 San Diego, California, USA http://www.sigmobile.org/mobicom/2003/ Sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE ACM MobiCom 2003, the Ninth Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, is the ninth in a series of annual conferences sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE dedicated to addressing the challenges in the areas of mobile computing and wireless and mobile networking. The MobiCom conference series serves as the premier international forum addressing networks, systems, algorithms, and applications that support the symbiosis of mobile computers and wireless networks. MobiCom is a highly selective, single-track conference focusing on all issues in mobile computing and wireless and mobile networking at the link layer and above. MobiCom 2003 will be held September 14-19, 2003, at the Westin Horton Plaza Hotel in beautiful, sunny San Diego, California. PAPERS: Authors are invited to submit full papers presenting new research related to the theory or practice of mobile computing and networking. All submissions must describe original research, not published or currently under review for another conference or journal. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to: - Applications and computing services supporting mobile users - Architectures, protocols, and algorithms to cope with mobility, limited bandwidth, or intermittent connectivity - Database and data management issues in mobile computing - Operating system and middleware support for mobile computing and networking - Distributed systems aspects of mobile computing - New mobile and wireless applications - Integration and interworking of wired and wireless networks - Performance of mobile and wireless networks and systems - Location-dependent applications and protocols - Security and privacy of mobile/wireless systems - Mobile ad hoc and sensor networks - Wireless multimedia systems - Algorithms and protocols for power management and control - Service creation and management environments for mobile/wireless systems The program committee will referee all papers, and accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings. Papers of particular merit will be proposed for publication in the ACM/Kluwer Wireless Networks (WINET) and Mobile Networks and Applications (MONET) journals. CHALLENGES PAPERS: The conference also solicits short papers (maximum of 8 pages) that challenge the mobile computing community with revolutionary new technologies or visionary applications. Such papers should provide stimulating ideas or grand visions that may open up exciting avenues of far-reaching future research; descriptions of new products or simple evolution of existing work are not appropriate as Challenges Papers. Challenges Papers will be reviewed and should be submitted using the normal submission procedure but must be clearly identified as intended as Challenges Papers. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: All paper submissions will be handled electronically. Authors should prepare a Portable Document Format (PDF) or PostScript version of their full paper. Papers must be no longer than 15 pages (8 pages for Challenges submissions), in font size no smaller than 10 points, and must fit properly on US "Letter"-sized paper (8.5x11 inches) with reasonable margins. Detailed instructions on the paper submission procedure and format will be available on the conference web pages. The paper submission deadline for all papers is March 5, 2003. All submitted papers will be judged based on their quality through double-blind reviewing, where the identities of the authors are withheld from the reviewers. Authors' names must not appear in the paper or in the PostScript or PDF file. Submitted papers (or substantially similar papers) must not be currently under review for any other publication. Please direct any questions about the paper submission process to the Program Co-Chairs at mobicom_pcchairs@acm.org. TUTORIALS: Proposals for tutorials are solicited. Evaluation of tutorial proposals will be based on the expertise and experience of the instructors, and on the relevance of the subject matter. Potential instructors are requested to submit a tutorial proposal of at most 5 pages, including a biographical sketch, to the Tutorial Co-Chairs by April 7, 2003. PANELS: Panels are solicited that examine innovative, controversial, or otherwise provocative issues of interest. Panel proposals should not exceed 3 pages, including biographical sketches of the panelists. Potential panel organizers should contact the Panel Co-Chairs by April 21, 2003. RESEARCH DEMOS AND EXHIBITS: Proposals for research demos are solicited. Proposals should not exceed 3 pages and should include a description of the demo and equipment to be used. Send proposals to the Research Demo Chair by July 26, 2003. We are also planning an Expo featuring exhibits of the latest mobile computing products and services. BEST STUDENT PAPER AWARD: Papers with a student as a primary author will be considered for the Best Student Paper award, with a cash award of $1000 USD. Students must indicate with their submission that they would like to be considered for this award. IMPORTANT DATES: Paper submissions due: March 5, 2003 Notification of acceptance: June 16, 2003 Camera-ready version due: July 18, 2003 GENERAL CHAIR: David B. Johnson Rice University dbj@cs.rice.edu PROGRAM CO-CHAIRS: Anthony D. Joseph University of California, Berkeley adj@eecs.berkeley.edu Nitin H. Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign nhv@uiuc.edu FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact the General Chair or Program Co-Chairs for more information. For information on ACM SIGMOBILE and the MobiCom series of conferences, see http://www.sigmobile.org/ or contact mobicom_info@acm.org. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 17 04:10:04 2003 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 EAA16081 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:10:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0H9PZB13535 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:25:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0H9PYJ13532 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:25:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16073 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:09:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0H9CHJ12876; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:12:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0H96oJ11961 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:06:50 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA15820 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 03:50:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8086 invoked by uid 417); 17 Jan 2003 08:54:09 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 08:54:09 -0000 Received: from ankur ([203.94.241.102]) (AUTH: LOGIN ankurjain@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:54:01 -0700 Message-ID: <003601c2be06$ba5f8aa0$66f15ecb@ankur> Reply-To: "Ankur Jain" From: "Ankur Jain" To: "Harpreet Arora" Cc: manet@ietf.org References: <15864.52776.279000.257414@gargle.gargle.HOWL><021b01c2a62c$48d70c60$94041981@mcs.drexel.edu><010801c2bd30$e38acec0$2af15ecb@ankur> <002f01c2bd76$f452c190$94041981@mcs.drexel.edu> Subject: Re: [manet] Manet Applications Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:20:05 +0530 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Harpreet, Try the following url: http://www.informatik.uni-bonn.de/IV/BonnMotion/ - Ankur ----- Original Message ----- From: Harpreet Arora To: Ankur Jain Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [manet] Manet Applications > Hi Ankur, > > Thanks for the reply. Can u point me to sources of information about > BonnMotion model. > > Harpreet > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ankur Jain" > To: "Harpreet S. Arora" ; > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:16 AM > Subject: Re: [manet] Manet Applications > > > > Hi Harpreet, > > > > If you are looking for some other mobility models, there is a generator > > BonnMotion which also generates scenario files compatible to ns2. > > > > I think their model is good and can defintely be used for commercial > > applications. Regarding defense apps, one has to make lots of assumptions > > which 'may not' be able to model correctly using any currently available > > models. > > > > Hope it helps. > > > > Regards > > Ankur > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Harpreet S. Arora > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:57 AM > > Subject: [manet] Manet Applications > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am looking for literature on commercial and defense applications of > > > MANETs. Most of the papers currently show simulation results based on > the > > > random way-point model, which might not be an accurate modelling of the > > real > > > life applications. Are there more accurate mobility models available? > Can > > > anyone please guide me to literature on the related fields? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Harpreet > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Fri Jan 17 04:50:38 2003 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 EAA16772 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0HA6A616201 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:06:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HA6AJ16198 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:06:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16765 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:50:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0H9pvJ15512; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:51:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0H9onJ15447 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:50:49 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16551 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:34:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir01nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.33]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.1/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0H9bB022810 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:37:11 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:38:07 +0200 Received: from mgw.research.nokia.com ([172.21.33.76]) by esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:38:07 +0200 Received: from nokia.com (manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112]) by mgw.research.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04926; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:38:07 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: mgw.research.nokia.com: Host manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112] claimed to be nokia.com Message-ID: <3E27CEB9.8050207@nokia.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:36:57 +0200 From: Manel Guerrero Zapata User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020623 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ext zhen CC: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] SAODV(corrected) References: <3E3A387B@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2003 09:38:07.0884 (UTC) FILETIME=[245E4CC0:01C2BE0C] 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi :) If you are talking about the 'Signature for RREP' in the 'RREQ Double Signature Extension', it is signed by the originatior of the RREQ. But it will not be used for the RREP of this Route Request. As it says in section #7, it will be used by some intermediate node when/if it receives a different RREQ that asks for the originator of the first RREQ. So, although it is signed by the originator (A) it will only be used for a different Route Request in which the destination is A. If you are talking about the 'Signature of the new Lifetime' in the 'RREP Double Signature Extension', it is signed by the intermediate node that originates the RREP (as it explains section #8). The use of Double signatures is optional. It is designed to allow intermediate nodes to reply to RREQs but it is slightly less secure. So it is your desition to use the sigle signatures (that it is more secure but does not allow intermediate nodes to reply) or the doble signatures. Desition that should, of course, depend in your security requirements. I hope that it's more clear now. BR/Manel ext zhen wrote: > hello, > > while reading SAODV, I can't understand the digital signature part very > well. The second signature is signed by source or destination? If it is by > the source, how come to prevent intermediate nodes from spoofing to have a > route to the distination? > > thanks for any help > > Zhen > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jan 17 06:19:40 2003 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 GAA18203 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:19:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0HBZEb22219 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:35:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HBZEJ22216 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:35:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18195 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:19:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HBK0J21475; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:20:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HBHaJ21409 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:17:36 -0500 Received: from mail.iitk.ac.in (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17934 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:01:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from antivirus.cc.iitk.ac.in (antivirus [172.31.1.102]) by mail.iitk.ac.in (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA11224 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:36:16 +0530 (IST) Received: from mailhost.cse.iitk.ac.in ([172.31.16.2]) by antivirus.cc.iitk.ac.in (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2003011716343930559 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:34:39 +0530 Received: from cselinux1.cse.iitk.ac.in (IDENT:ashishp@cselinux1.cse.iitk.ac.in [172.31.16.12]) by mailhost.cse.iitk.ac.in (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HB3cS19777 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:33:38 +0530 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:34:23 +0530 (IST) From: Ashish Pandey To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] about clustering computation 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi I'm research student in Deptt. of Computer Science & Engg. at Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. Nowadays i'm working on Manet, i'm basically working on clustering mean formation of clusters and their stability..so can anyone suggest me which clustering scheme there are using in ad hoc networks regards Ashish -- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 17 10:18:27 2003 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 KAA25477 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0HFY5N07290 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:34:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HFY5J07287 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:34:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25464 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:17:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HFEIJ06079; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:14:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HFBlJ05976 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:11:47 -0500 Received: from SMTP1.ECE.NEU.EDU (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24222 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from calvin.ece.neu.edu (calvin.ece.neu.edu [129.10.62.61]) by SMTP1.ECE.NEU.EDU (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id h0HEwlrw008957; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:58:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from bibbiena.ece.neu.edu ([129.10.60.216]) by calvin.ece.neu.edu (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003011709584700393 ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:58:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (basagni@localhost) by bibbiena.ece.neu.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h0HEwkd20004; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:58:47 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: bibbiena.ece.neu.edu: basagni owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:58:46 -0500 (EST) From: Stefano Basagni X-X-Sender: basagni@bibbiena To: Ashish Pandey cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] about clustering computation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ashish, whenever clustering, or the construction of a dynamic backbone is involved, we use the clustering algorithms described in: @inproceedings{clus1, author = "Basagni, S. and Turgut, D. and Das, S. K.", title = "Mobility-Adaptive Protocols for Managing Large Ad Hoc Networks", booktitle = "Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications, ICC 2001", address = "Helsinki, Finland", month = "June 11--14", year = 2001 } @inproceedings{Basagni99c, author = "Basagni, S.", title = "Distributed Clustering for Ad Hoc Networks", booktitle = "Proceedings of the 1999 International Symposium on Parallel Architectures, Algorithms, and Networks ({I-SPAN'99})", editor = "Zomaya, A. Y. and Hsu, D. F. and Ibarra, O. and Origuchi, S. and Nassimi, D. and Palis, M.", publisher = "IEEE Computer Society", pages = "310--315", address = "Perth/Fremantle, Australia", month = "June 23--25", year = 1999 } Cheers, St. -- Stefano Basagni, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Computer Engineering Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering 312 Dana Research Center Northeastern University 360 Huntigton Ave. Boston, MA 02115 Tel. 617 373 3061, Fax 617 373 8970 E-mail: basagni@ece.neu.edu _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 17 16:43:10 2003 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 QAA05285 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:43:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0HLwua32493 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:58:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HLwuJ32490 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:58:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05273 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:42:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HLlMJ31990; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:47:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HLW2J30865 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:32:02 -0500 Received: from fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04695 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:15:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ee.ryerson.ca ([24.112.78.44]) by fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (InterMail vM.5.01.05.06 201-253-122-126-106-20020509) with ESMTP id <20030117211810.TXQB214174.fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@ee.ryerson.ca> for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:18:10 -0500 Message-ID: <3E287333.9050101@ee.ryerson.ca> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:18:43 -0500 From: Muhammad Jaseemuddin Organization: Ryerson University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.112.78.44] using ID at Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:18:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] CFP: IEEE VTC Symposium on IP Mobility 2003 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Call for Papers - IP Mobility 2003 IEEE VTC Symposium on IP Mobility October 4-9, 2003 Orlando, FL, USA in Conjunction with IEEE VTC Fall 2003 Submission Deadline: February 15, 2003 Scope ===== Mobility support in IP network has been an area of active research and development. The impacts of mobility and wireless medium at all layers of Internet architecture have generated wide range of interest in the research community. IETF has been working on standardizing protocols for inter-domain and intra-domain mobility, context transfer, routing for network mobility and ad-hoc networks. This symposium is aimed at providing researchers and practitioners a forum for presenting their research at all layers of Internet architecture and sharing experiences. It will provide a unique opportunity to people from academia and industry to exchange their ideas on short-term and long-term research issues. The theme of this symposium is **Support for Network Mobility**. The outcome of the symposium is expected to present a view on how close to reality is IP Mobility and set a direction for research to deal with emerging issues. The papers must discuss issues and solutions related to support for wireless medium and mobility in IP network. The symposium solicits papers related to but not limited to the following areas: * Routing for host (e.g. terminals) and network (e.g. trains, buses) mobility, protocols and performance * New approaches to wide-area and local mobility * Quality of Service models, resource management, and provisioning * Traffic Engineering in mobile wireless IP access networks * Transport protocol design for mobile wireless networks * Security including security threat models, threat analysis and their impact on routing * Application level protocol design and performance * Mobile and wireless applications, their service requirements and performance * Content delivery support in IP network for mobile users * Multicasting for mobile wireless services * Emerging network architectures (e.g. multi-hop ad-hoc network, sensor network) * Internetworking of different network types (e.g. ad-hoc to cellular, wireless LAN to cellular) * Inter-vehicular network architecture * Mobile wireless IP access network deployment and management Posters are also solicited on the projects related to the symposium theme. Submission Instructions ======================= Authors MUST submit an extended abstract (up to 2 pages) through the EDAS web site (http://www.edas.info/), together with a short abstract (approximately 150 words) in the EDAS web site form. Please note that the potential authors should create your own account in the EDAS web site (http://www.edas.info/) before submitting paper(s). Although either MS Word or PDF file format is acceptable when submitting the extended abstracts, it is strongly suggested that authors should submit papers using PDF format. The submission(s) should include complete contacting information of the author(s), such as the name, mailing address, telephone and fax numbers, and email address. All submitted papers are subject to peer review. Submissions can also be made using the links of call for technical papers in the conference web site: http://www.vtc2003.org/. Important Dates Extended Abstract Due: February 15, 2003 Acceptance Notification: April 15, 2003 Camera Ready Copy of Full Paper Due: July 15, 2003 Symposium Date: October 4, 2003 Organization ============ Program Co-Chairs: Muhammad Jaseemuddin (jaseem@ee.ryerson.ca) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Ryerson University Toronto, Canada Hongyi Li (hyli@nortelnetworks.com) Wireless Technology Lab Nortel Networks Ottawa, Canada Publicity Co-Chair: Junaid Zubairi (junaid.zubairi@fredonia.edu) Department of Mathematics and Computer Science SUNY at Fredonia Fredonia, NY, USA Technical Program Committee =========================== * Ahmed Helmy (USC) * Yasser Rasheed (Intel) * Raouf Boutaba (University of Waterloo) * Sajal Das (The University of Texas at Arlington) * Haseeb Akhtar (inCode Telecom group, CA) * Lars Wolf (TU Braunschweig, Germany) * Samir R. Das (SUNY at Stony Brook) * Thiery Ernst (Wide, Keio U Japan) * Abdelsalam Helal (U of Florida, Gainesville) _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 18 01:16:48 2003 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 BAA12533 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 01:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0I6Wh925458 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 01:32:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0I6WhJ25455 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 01:32:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12526 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 01:16:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0I6HPJ24841; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 01:17:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0I66LJ24003 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 01:06:21 -0500 Received: from noya.bupt.edu.cn (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12136 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:49:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from wym ([202.112.108.58]) by noya.bupt.edu.cn (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0I5rEKP010155 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:53:14 +0800 (CST) Message-Id: <200301180553.h0I5rEKP010155@noya.bupt.edu.cn> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:53:15 +0800 From: WANG Yu-mei Reply-To: b018158@bupt.edu.cn To: "manet@ietf.org" Organization: BUPT X-mailer: FoxMail 3.11 Release [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Research on MAC mechanism in MANET 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi I want to make some researches on MAC mechanism in Manet. Could someone of you recommend me some materials or excellent papers on it? I learned from former papers that access collision resulted from hidden terminal and exposed terminal problem in IEEE 802.11 will degrade TCP performance tremendously, and I found it is quite true from my simulations under various topologies in MANET. And now I want to make some modifications to IEEE 802.11 or even propose a new mechism to apapt to manet applications. Thank you. Best Regards. -- Wang, Yumei School of Information Engineering, BUPT, China TEl: +86-10-62283147(o) ------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 18 08:17:27 2003 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 IAA26623 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0IDXVZ23628 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:33:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0IDXVJ23625 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:33:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26617 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:16:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0IDMtJ23244; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:22:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0IDCCJ22960 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:12:12 -0500 Received: from memphis.ece.cornell.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26407 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 07:55:37 -0500 (EST) From: haas@ece.cornell.edu Received: from verdi.ece.cornell.edu (verdi.ece.cornell.edu [128.84.210.27]) by memphis.ece.cornell.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0ICwqK25187; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 07:58:53 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 07:58:16 -0500 (EST) To: Ashish Pandey cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] about clustering computation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Ashish, B. Liang and Z.J. Haas, "Virtual Backbone Generation and Maintenance in Ad Hoc Network Mobility Management," IEEE INFOCOM'2000, Tel Aviv, Israel, March 26-30, 2000 Zygmunt Haas. ===--=-==-==== ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Prof. Zygmunt J. Haas http://people.ece.cornell.edu/haas Wireless Networks Laboratory http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu School of Electrical Engineering Cornell University tel: +1-607-255-3454 323 Frank Rhodes Hall fax: +1-607-255-9072 Ithaca, NY 14853 e-mail: haas@ece.cornell.edu U.S.A WNL web page: http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Ashish Pandey wrote: > > Hi > > I'm research student in Deptt. of Computer Science & Engg. at Indian > Institute of Technology, Kanpur. Nowadays i'm working on Manet, i'm > basically working on clustering mean formation of clusters and their > stability..so can anyone suggest me which clustering scheme there are > using in ad hoc networks > > regards > > Ashish > > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Jan 18 14:51:02 2003 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 OAA00512 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:51:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0IK7FD08981 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:07:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0IK7EJ08978 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:07:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00501 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:50:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0IJuNJ08219; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:56:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0IJlGJ08070 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:47:16 -0500 Received: from gandalf.icr.a-star.edu.sg (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00297 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg (gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg [137.132.31.253]) by gandalf.icr.a-star.edu.sg (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0IJYgXw010796 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:34:42 +0800 (SGT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([172.16.2.215]) by gwserver.icr.a-star.edu.sg; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:28:01 +0800 Received: by localhost.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7F1062363B; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:33:33 +0800 (SGT) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:33:33 +0800 From: Sukanta Kumar Hazra To: "Harpreet S. Arora" Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] Manet Applications Message-ID: <20030118193333.GA21918@icr.a-star.edu.sg> References: <15864.52776.279000.257414@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <021b01c2a62c$48d70c60$94041981@mcs.drexel.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <021b01c2a62c$48d70c60$94041981@mcs.drexel.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: Institute for Infocomm Research Phone: +65 68709338 PGP-KEY: http://www.icr.a-star.edu.sg/~sukanta/skhkey.asc PGP-ID: 0x8E084AD5 Key-Fingerprint: 9C0D B00C C62A 7059 5314 99FC CE90 478A 8E08 4AD5 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Hi, > > I am looking for literature on commercial and defense applications of > MANETs. Most of the papers currently show simulation results based on the > random way-point model, which might not be an accurate modelling of the real > life applications. Are there more accurate mobility models available? Can > anyone please guide me to literature on the related fields? > You might want to look at the paper "A survey of mobility models for Ad Hoc Network Research" by Tracy Camp, Jeff Boleng, Vanessa Davies. -- Sukanta _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 19 14:37:49 2003 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 OAA24591 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:37:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0JJsUu18091 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:54:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0JJsUJ18088 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:54:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24588 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0JJXtJ16875; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:33:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0JJNgJ16683 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:23:42 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24158 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:06:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0JJ9sJH013161 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:09:54 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:10:03 -0400 From: zhen To: manet@ietf.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Subject: RE: [manet] SAODV(corrected) Message-ID: <3E2D1892@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Manel, Thank you very much for the answer. But I am still confused. Any node in the network can overheard RREQ initiated from a node(call it "A"). So it will have the second signature. Does that mean any node having that information can fool those nodes that initiate RREQs to "A" later by claiming it has the signature so "authenticated" route to "A"? I might be confused somewhere. I do appreciate your help. Zhen >===== Original Message From Manel Guerrero Zapata ===== >Hi :) > >If you are talking about the 'Signature for RREP' in the 'RREQ Double Signature >Extension', it is signed by the originatior of the RREQ. But it will not be used >for the RREP of this Route Request. As it says in section #7, it will be used by >some intermediate node when/if it receives a different RREQ that asks for the >originator of the first RREQ. >So, although it is signed by the originator (A) it will only be used for a >different Route Request in which the destination is A. > >If you are talking about the 'Signature of the new Lifetime' in the 'RREP >Double Signature Extension', it is signed by the intermediate node that >originates the RREP (as it explains section #8). > >The use of Double signatures is optional. It is designed to allow intermediate >nodes to reply to RREQs but it is slightly less secure. So it is your desition >to use the sigle signatures (that it is more secure but does not allow >intermediate nodes to reply) or the doble signatures. Desition that should, of >course, depend in your security requirements. > >I hope that it's more clear now. > >BR/Manel > > >ext zhen wrote: >> hello, >> >> while reading SAODV, I can't understand the digital signature part very >> well. The second signature is signed by source or destination? If it is by >> the source, how come to prevent intermediate nodes from spoofing to have a >> route to the distination? >> >> thanks for any help >> >> Zhen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Mon Jan 20 03:10:29 2003 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 DAA13600 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:10:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0K8RQ032340 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:27:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K8RPJ32337 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:27:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13586 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:09:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K8DNJ31732; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:13:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K82NJ30694 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:02:23 -0500 Received: from rediffmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA13155 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 02:44:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 15160 invoked by uid 510); 20 Jan 2003 07:56:27 -0000 Date: 20 Jan 2003 07:56:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20030120075627.15159.qmail@webmail9.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (203.199.206.213) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 20 jan 2003 07:56:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "chenna reddy pakanati" Reply-To: "chenna reddy pakanati" To: manet@ietf.org Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [manet] hai indians 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , hai i am interested in adhoc networks. i am currently in the process of collecting papers on adhoc networks. i like to know about the conferences that are going to be held in india. why don't we form a group and exchange our ideas and also information. if anyone interested please reply. p.chenna reddy _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 20 04:20:53 2003 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 EAA14730 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0K9bqf05277 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:37:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K9bpJ05274 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:37:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14727 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:20:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K9R1J04084; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:27:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K9FtJ03687 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:15:55 -0500 Received: from web40404.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA14358 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:58:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030120090150.16281.qmail@web40404.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [193.95.79.234] by web40404.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:01:50 CET Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:01:50 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?alouini=20khalif?= To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] this is a test please ignore 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 20 04:25:44 2003 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 EAA14848 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:25:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0K9ggg05604 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:42:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K9ggJ05601 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:42:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14839 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:25:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K9X3J04343; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:33:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K9RNJ04091 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:27:23 -0500 Received: from web40403.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA14564 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:09:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030120091318.42224.qmail@web40403.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [193.95.79.234] by web40403.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:13:18 CET Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:13:18 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?alouini=20khalif?= To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] help for dynamic clustering for ad hoc networks 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit hello, i'm studying many clustering for mobile ad hoc networks like : -WCA -Max min heuristic -Mutual exclusion -DMAC,DDCA,ABCP -token circulation -leader election so is there any other algorithm or heuristic for this type of networks (for clustering) and is there any new algorithm for clustering (full algorith like WCA which take en consideration many type of system properties (transmision power, load blancy ....) is there is any other algorithm or papers for dynamic ad hoc clustering please send me mail thanks in advance ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 20 04:33:40 2003 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 EAA14988 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:33:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0K9och06039 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:50:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K9ocJ06036 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:50:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14980 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:33:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K9fhJ05526; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:41:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K9e2J05427 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:40:02 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14777 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:22:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.36]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.1/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0K9SBt02051 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:28:11 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:25:55 +0200 Received: from mgw.research.nokia.com ([172.21.33.76]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:25:54 +0200 Received: from nokia.com (manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112]) by mgw.research.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25461; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:25:54 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: mgw.research.nokia.com: Host manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112] claimed to be nokia.com Message-ID: <3E2BC054.4030607@nokia.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:24:36 +0200 From: Manel Guerrero Zapata User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020623 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ext zhen CC: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] SAODV(corrected) References: <3E2D1892@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2003 09:25:54.0931 (UTC) FILETIME=[EEBBCC30:01C2C065] 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Zhen :) Well, RREQs are not something a bad guy wants to overhear. RREQs are broadcasted to everybody, so you don't need to play tricks to 'overhear' them, you hear them anyway. Then, any node having that information is not fooling by replying a node that initiates a RREQ to A. It's just replying according to the AODV protocol. Best regards, Manel ext zhen wrote: > Hi, Manel, > > Thank you very much for the answer. > > But I am still confused. Any node in the network can overheard RREQ initiated > from a node(call it "A"). So it will have the second signature. Does that mean > any node having that information can fool those nodes that initiate RREQs to > "A" later by claiming it has the signature so "authenticated" route to "A"? > > I might be confused somewhere. I do appreciate your help. > > > Zhen > >>===== Original Message From Manel Guerrero Zapata > > ===== > >>Hi :) >> >>If you are talking about the 'Signature for RREP' in the 'RREQ Double > > Signature > >>Extension', it is signed by the originatior of the RREQ. But it will not be > > used > >>for the RREP of this Route Request. As it says in section #7, it will be used > > by > >>some intermediate node when/if it receives a different RREQ that asks for the >>originator of the first RREQ. >>So, although it is signed by the originator (A) it will only be used for a >>different Route Request in which the destination is A. >> >>If you are talking about the 'Signature of the new Lifetime' in the 'RREP >>Double Signature Extension', it is signed by the intermediate node that >>originates the RREP (as it explains section #8). >> >>The use of Double signatures is optional. It is designed to allow > > intermediate > >>nodes to reply to RREQs but it is slightly less secure. So it is your > > desition > >>to use the sigle signatures (that it is more secure but does not allow >>intermediate nodes to reply) or the doble signatures. Desition that should, > > of > >>course, depend in your security requirements. >> >>I hope that it's more clear now. >> >>BR/Manel >> >> >>ext zhen wrote: >> >>>hello, >>> >>>while reading SAODV, I can't understand the digital signature part very >>>well. The second signature is signed by source or destination? If it is by >>>the source, how come to prevent intermediate nodes from spoofing to have a >>>route to the distination? >>> >>>thanks for any help >>> >>>Zhen >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 Mon Jan 20 11:00:38 2003 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 LAA22547 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:00:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0KGHi528770 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:17:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KGHiJ28767 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:17:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22521 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:00:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KG0KJ27481; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:00:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KFtuJ27271 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:55:56 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22066 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:38:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0KFfhJH028490 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:41:44 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:41:50 -0400 From: zhen To: manet@ietf.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Subject: RE: [manet] SAODV(corrected) Message-ID: <3E2CE85B@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree. But what if the node does not reply according to the AODV. Any node with the second signature can reply even though it actually does not have route to A. still need instruction :) regards Zhen >===== Original Message From Manel Guerrero Zapata ===== >Hi Zhen :) > >Well, RREQs are not something a bad guy wants to overhear. >RREQs are broadcasted to everybody, so you don't need to >play tricks to 'overhear' them, you hear them anyway. > >Then, any node having that information is not fooling by >replying a node that initiates a RREQ to A. It's just >replying according to the AODV protocol. > >Best regards, > > Manel > > >ext zhen wrote: >> Hi, Manel, >> >> Thank you very much for the answer. >> >> But I am still confused. Any node in the network can overheard RREQ initiated >> from a node(call it "A"). So it will have the second signature. Does that mean >> any node having that information can fool those nodes that initiate RREQs to >> "A" later by claiming it has the signature so "authenticated" route to "A"? >> >> I might be confused somewhere. I do appreciate your help. >> >> >> Zhen >> >>>===== Original Message From Manel Guerrero Zapata >> >> ===== >> >>>Hi :) >>> >>>If you are talking about the 'Signature for RREP' in the 'RREQ Double >> >> Signature >> >>>Extension', it is signed by the originatior of the RREQ. But it will not be >> >> used >> >>>for the RREP of this Route Request. As it says in section #7, it will be used >> >> by >> >>>some intermediate node when/if it receives a different RREQ that asks for the >>>originator of the first RREQ. >>>So, although it is signed by the originator (A) it will only be used for a >>>different Route Request in which the destination is A. >>> >>>If you are talking about the 'Signature of the new Lifetime' in the 'RREP >>>Double Signature Extension', it is signed by the intermediate node that >>>originates the RREP (as it explains section #8). >>> >>>The use of Double signatures is optional. It is designed to allow >> >> intermediate >> >>>nodes to reply to RREQs but it is slightly less secure. So it is your >> >> desition >> >>>to use the sigle signatures (that it is more secure but does not allow >>>intermediate nodes to reply) or the doble signatures. Desition that should, >> >> of >> >>>course, depend in your security requirements. >>> >>>I hope that it's more clear now. >>> >>>BR/Manel >>> >>> >>>ext zhen wrote: >>> >>>hello, >>> >>>while reading SAODV, I can't understand the digital signature part very >>>well. The second signature is signed by source or destination? If it is by >>>the source, how come to prevent intermediate nodes from spoofing to have a >>>route to the distination? >>> >>>thanks for any help >>> >>>Zhen >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 Mon Jan 20 12:05:25 2003 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 MAA24216 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:05:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0KHMXM32751 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:22:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KHMWJ32748 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:22:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24182 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:04:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KHCrJ32433; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:12:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KH83J32283 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:08:03 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23861 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:50:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.36]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.1/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0KGu4t14497 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:56:04 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:53:47 +0200 Received: from mgw.research.nokia.com ([172.21.33.76]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:53:47 +0200 Received: from nokia.com (manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112]) by mgw.research.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28465; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:53:47 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: mgw.research.nokia.com: Host manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112] claimed to be nokia.com Message-ID: <3E2C294C.1020300@nokia.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:52:28 +0200 From: Manel Guerrero Zapata User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020623 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ext zhen CC: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] SAODV(corrected) References: <3E2CE85B@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2003 16:53:47.0712 (UTC) FILETIME=[8028C400:01C2C0A4] 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi :) > I agree. But what if the node does not reply according to the AODV. The only field that the node can change is the lifetime of the route (the rest are validated by the signature, so they are forced to be according to the AODV). > Any node > with the second signature can reply even though it actually does not have > route to A. If you have received a RREQ then you _do_ have (or you had and now it has expired) a route to A. > still need instruction :) I hope this clarifies the thing. And anyway, if you want a more secure approach use the SAODV sigle signature extension instead of the double signature extensions. BR/Manel > regards > > Zhen > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 20 16:01:40 2003 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 QAA00618 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:01:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0KLIq214816 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:18:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KLIqJ14813 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:18:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00598 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:01:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KL8jJ14257; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:08:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KL1aJ13406 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:01:36 -0500 Received: from web40702.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA00137 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:43:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030120204717.87212.qmail@web40702.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [129.10.115.162] by web40702.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:47:17 PST Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:47:17 -0800 (PST) From: feng zhu Subject: Re: [manet] key management To: Shweta.Bhandare@colorado.edu Cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3E25FFEA.3562658E@ece.uvic.ca> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Shweta, I think you can find more solutions and papers for key management in Ad-Hoc Networks form my reading list. The page contains a list of papers on security for ad hoc networks, including security for Routing Protocols; Key Exchange, Distribution and management, security for Group Communication and Multicast, security for Sensor Network and so on. http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zhufeng/security_manet.html Best --Feng > Shweta Bhandare wrote: > > > > Is Manet Key Management centralized or > distributed, public key or not, > > etc. Can anyone give me pointers to find > information in this context? > > > > Thanks, > > Shweta > > ===== ============================== ZHU, Feng zf_manet@yahoo.com http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zhufeng/security_manet.html __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 20 16:05:54 2003 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 QAA00898 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0KLN7c15226 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:23:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KLN7J15223 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:23:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00871 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:05:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KLDEJ14423; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:13:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KL6AJ13529 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:06:10 -0500 Received: from web40705.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA00218 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:48:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030120205151.1610.qmail@web40705.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [129.10.115.162] by web40705.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:51:51 PST Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:51:51 -0800 (PST) From: feng zhu To: manet@ietf.org, rpsec@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [manet] Security for Ad hoc Networks (including Sensor Networks) 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, I have updated my reading list of Security for Ad hoc Networks (including Sensor Networks). http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zhufeng/security_manet.html The page contains a list of papers on security for ad hoc networks, including security for Routing Protocols; Key Exchange, Distribution and management, security for Group Communication and Multicast, security for Sensor Network and so on. Hope it helpful for your research. Best, -- Feng ===== ============================== ZHU, Feng zf_manet@yahoo.com http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zhufeng/security_manet.html __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 20 16:29:30 2003 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 QAA01623 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0KLkh817204 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:46:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KLkhJ17201 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:46:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01616 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:28:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KLKuJ14926; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:20:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KLHuJ14769 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:17:56 -0500 Received: from web40708.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA00540 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:00:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030120210337.66034.qmail@web40708.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [129.10.115.162] by web40708.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:03:37 PST Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:03:37 -0800 (PST) From: feng zhu To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [manet] Security for Ad hoc Networks (including Sensor Networks) 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, I have updated my reading list of Security for Ad hoc Networks (including Sensor Networks). http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zhufeng/security_manet.html The page contains a list of papers on security for ad hoc networks, including security for Routing Protocols; Key Exchange, Distribution and management, security for Group Communication and Multicast, security for Sensor Network and so on. Hope it helpful for your research. Best, -- Feng ===== ============================== ZHU, Feng zf_manet@yahoo.com http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zhufeng/security_manet.html __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 20 18:26:53 2003 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 SAA04296 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:26:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0KNi9O24629 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:44:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KNi9J24626 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:44:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04284 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KNPjJ22953; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:25:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KNNNJ22850 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:23:23 -0500 Received: from fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03755 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:05:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from imgw1.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (ons-imgw1 [192.168.1.66]) by fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h0KN8NI2022776 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:08:26 -0700 Received: from cpsc.ucalgary.ca (ict720f [136.159.17.10]) by imgw1.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h0KN8MMP002751 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:08:22 -0700 Message-ID: <3E2C8166.2050704@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:08:22 -0700 From: Abhinav Gupta Reply-To: gupta@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Organization: University of Calgary User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-milter (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=7.5 tests=NOSPAM_INC,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT, USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA,X_ACCEPT_LANG version=2.43 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Pointers to modifying the linux kernel for implementation of a routing protocol 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I am trying to modify the linux kernel for implementation of a routing protocol for manet on laptops running Linux 7.3 and using IEEE 802.11b. Could someone please give me some pointers about doing the same? Thanks. Abhinav. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 20 18:27:01 2003 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 SAA04310 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0KNiHi24647 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:44:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KNiGJ24644 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:44:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04290 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:26:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KNYCJ23428; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:34:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KNXmJ23375 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:33:48 -0500 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03983 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from vivi.cc.vt.edu (IDENT:mirapoint@vivi-lb.cc.vt.edu [10.1.1.12]) by lennier.cc.vt.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0KNJRm34035; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:19:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from LAPTOPPC (h80ad372c.dhcp.vt.edu [128.173.55.44]) by vivi.cc.vt.edu (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ASN01507; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:19:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003e01c2c0da$5e9fa700$2c37ad80@LAPTOPPC> From: "Tao Lin" To: , References: <3E2C8166.2050704@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Subject: Re: [manet] Pointers to modifying the linux kernel for implementation of a routing protocol Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:19:23 -0500 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You don't need to touch the linux kernel. You may refer to the linux implementation of some other protocols such as OLSR/AODV. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abhinav Gupta" To: Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:08 PM Subject: [manet] Pointers to modifying the linux kernel for implementation of a routing protocol > Hi, > > I am trying to modify the linux kernel for implementation of a routing > protocol for manet on laptops running Linux 7.3 and using IEEE 802.11b. > Could someone please give me some pointers about doing the same? > > Thanks. > > Abhinav. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 21 10:26:58 2003 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 KAA02367 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:26:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0LFiWG25445 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:44:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LFiWJ25442 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:44:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02354 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:26:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LFNDJ23675; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:23:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LFBkJ23248 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:11:46 -0500 Received: from mailer.cacs.louisiana.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01569 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:53:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from wupc.cacs.louisiana.edu (wupc.cacs.louisiana.edu [130.70.76.5]) by mailer.cacs.louisiana.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0LEv4g11570 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:57:04 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:57:04 -0600 (CST) From: "Dr. Hongyi Wu" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] Final CFP MONET Special Issue 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , -------------------------------------------------------------- Please accept our apologies if you receive this multiple times -------------------------------------------------------------- Kluwer Academic Publishers in cooperation with ACM announce a Special Issue of the Journal on Special Topics in Mobile Networking and Applications (MONET) on INTEGRATION Of HETEROGENOUS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES The full CFP can be found at: http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1383-469X Guest Editors: -------------- Dr. Hongyi Wu The Center for Advanced Computer Studies University of Louisiana at Lafayette Dr. Chunming Qiao Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering State University of New York at Buffalo Dr. Sudhir Dixit Nokia Research Center Dr. Erdal Cayirci Computer Engineering Department Yeditepe University Important Dates: ---------------- MANUSCRIPT DUE: Feb 1, 2003 ACCEPTANCE NOTIFICATION: May 1, 2003 FINAL MANUSCRIPT DUE: July 1, 2003 Topics: ------- Topics of interest include, but are not limited to the following, with particular emphasis on the integration of heterogeneous wireless technologies: * System architecture * Interoperation between wired, terrestrial wireless and satellite networks * Hybrid cellular systems, wireless LANs, ad hoc/sensor networks,Bluetooth * Location, Mobility and Handoff Management * System modeling and performance evaluation * Protocol design, analysis and optimization - Routing (including multicasting and broadcasting) - Energy efficient, self-organizing and resilient protocols - Medium access control protocols - TCP/IP over integrated wireless networks * Congestion, admission and flow control * Quality of service in the hybrid networks * Security and Privacy * Applications * Implementation and testbed experiments ======================================================================== Dr. Hongyi Wu, Assistant Professor The Center for Advanced Computer Studies (CACS) University of Louisiana (UL) at Lafayette P.O. Box 44330, Lafayette, LA 70504-4330, U.S.A. Tel: 337-482-5779, Fax: 337-482-5791 E-mail: wu@cacs.louisiana.edu http://www.cacs.louisiana.edu/~wu ======================================================================== _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 21 13:24:18 2003 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 NAA07692 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:24:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0LIfvv06826 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:41:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LIfvJ06823 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:41:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07681 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:23:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LIPhJ05172; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:25:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LIGAJ04814 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:16:10 -0500 Received: from xprdmailfe27.nwk.excite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06964 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:58:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by xprdmailfe27.nwk.excite.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id D45EC3A1C; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:01:23 -0500 (EST) To: manet@ietf.org Received: from [65.238.38.26] by xprdmailfe27.nwk.excite.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:01:23 EST X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = 866efc8c4bb7f059aa41460e03a0a97c Reply-To: jw2000@excite.com From: "Jack Wang" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jw2000@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__ac5896ab991d6f865f3ce6301594e575"; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20030121180123.D45EC3A1C@xprdmailfe27.nwk.excite.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:01:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [manet] Bluetooth simulation 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__ac5896ab991d6f865f3ce6301594e575 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All: Has any research been done about the simulation of Bluetooth? Is there any software that can be used for simulating the performance of Bluetooth? How about GloMoSim? Is there any particular discussion group for Bluetooth? Thanks a lot. Jack _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! --EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__ac5896ab991d6f865f3ce6301594e575 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi All:

Has any research been done about the simulation of Bluetooth? Is there any software that can be used for simulating the performance of Bluetooth? How about GloMoSim? Is there any particular discussion group for Bluetooth?

Thanks a lot.

Jack



Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web! --EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__ac5896ab991d6f865f3ce6301594e575-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 21 14:15:46 2003 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 OAA09248 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0LJXQW09908 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:33:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LJXQJ09905 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:33:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09239 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:15:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LJHLJ09111; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:17:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LJ9oJ08919 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:09:50 -0500 Received: from iron.cs.umanitoba.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08628 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:51:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (silver.cs.umanitoba.ca [130.179.28.34]) by iron.cs.umanitoba.ca (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.5) with ESMTP id h0LIt0j02923 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:55:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (lianglei@localhost) by silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.5) with ESMTP id h0LIt0D23301 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:55:00 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: silver.cs.umanitoba.ca: lianglei owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:55:00 -0600 (CST) From: Lei Liang To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] java-based manet simulator 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, all, are there any java-based MANET simulator existing? I need to implement a protocol in java on a simulation. Thanks in advance. Lei _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 21 14:42:33 2003 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 OAA10097 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:42:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0LK0EM11981 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:00:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LK0DJ11978 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:00:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10078 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:42:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LJeNJ10832; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:40:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LJUKJ09764 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:30:20 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA09150 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:12:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5201 invoked by uid 417); 21 Jan 2003 19:15:34 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 21 Jan 2003 19:15:34 -0000 Received: from ankur ([203.94.199.111]) (AUTH: LOGIN ankurjain@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:15:28 -0700 Message-ID: <002d01c2c182$31ab14c0$6fc75ecb@ankur> Reply-To: "Ankur Jain" From: "Ankur Jain" To: gupta@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Cc: manet@ietf.org References: <3E2C8166.2050704@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Subject: Re: [manet] Pointers to modifying the linux kernel for implementation of a routingprotocol Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:46:57 +0530 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Abhinav, Routing protocol can be implemented in Linux's user space only without making any modification in kernel code. Existing implementations of DSR may be of a great help to you. Regards Ankur ----- Original Message ----- From: Abhinav Gupta To: Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 4:38 AM Subject: [manet] Pointers to modifying the linux kernel for implementation of a routingprotocol > Hi, > > I am trying to modify the linux kernel for implementation of a routing > protocol for manet on laptops running Linux 7.3 and using IEEE 802.11b. > Could someone please give me some pointers about doing the same? > > Thanks. > > Abhinav. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 21 15:45:20 2003 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 PAA11555 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:45:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0LL33p15585 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:03:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LL32J15582 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:03:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11545 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:44:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LKnIJ15057; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:49:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LKevJ14854 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:40:57 -0500 Received: from SMTP1.ECE.NEU.EDU (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11033 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:22:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from calvin.ece.neu.edu (calvin.ece.neu.edu [129.10.62.61]) by SMTP1.ECE.NEU.EDU (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id h0LKQ4rx009961; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:26:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from bibbiena.ece.neu.edu ([129.10.60.216]) by calvin.ece.neu.edu (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003012115260829663 ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:26:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (basagni@localhost) by bibbiena.ece.neu.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h0LKQ9x22875; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:26:09 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: bibbiena.ece.neu.edu: basagni owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:26:09 -0500 (EST) From: Stefano Basagni X-X-Sender: basagni@bibbiena To: Jack Wang cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] Bluetooth simulation In-Reply-To: <20030121180123.D45EC3A1C@xprdmailfe27.nwk.excite.com> Message-ID: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi there, you might want to take a look at BlueHoc (http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/bluehoc/), that works with a recent release of ns2, and to Blueware, which also work on top of ns2 (http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/projects/blueware/software/). The two simulators implement different components of the Bluetooth stack (although not the complete stack), so choosing between the two depends also on what you want to simulate. Cheers, St. On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Jack Wang wrote: > Hi All: Has any research been done about the simulation of Bluetooth? Is there any software that can be used for simulating the performance of Bluetooth? How about GloMoSim? Is there any particular discussion group for Bluetooth? Thanks a lot. Jack > > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! > -- Stefano Basagni, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Computer Engineering Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering 312 Dana Research Center Northeastern University 360 Huntigton Ave. Boston, MA 02115 Tel. 617 373 3061, Fax 617 373 8970 E-mail: basagni@ece.neu.edu _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 21 18:53:25 2003 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 SAA15641 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:53:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0M0BAO27846 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:11:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M0BAJ27843 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:11:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15632 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:52:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M025J26493; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:02:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LNnLJ26175 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:49:21 -0500 Received: from web11806.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA15109 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:31:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030121233431.63379.qmail@web11806.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.196.240.19] by web11806.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:34:31 PST Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:34:31 -0800 (PST) From: prasanthi peketi To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [manet] NS-2 implementation of signal stability routing protocol 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , hi I am a student at the University of Arizona and am interested in knowing the NS-2 implementation of SSR protocol. Please let me know at the earliest. prasanthi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 21 19:41:41 2003 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 TAA16509 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0M0xSo30320 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:59:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M0xSJ30317 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:59:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16491 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M0iHJ29676; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:44:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M0XUJ28706 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:33:30 -0500 Received: from web20509.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA16110 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:15:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030122001838.34566.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [202.184.37.7] by web20509.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:18:38 PST Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:18:38 -0800 (PST) From: Shaiful To: manet@ietf.org Cc: gupta@cpsc.ucalgary.ca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [manet] Re:Pointers to modifying the linux kernel for implementation of a routing protocol 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, You can try click router: http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/click/ Good luck, Shaiful ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abhinav Gupta" To: Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:08 PM Subject: [manet] Pointers to modifying the linux kernel for implementation of a routing protocol Hi, I am trying to modify the linux kernel for implementation of a routing protocol for manet on laptops running Linux 7.3 and using IEEE 802.11b.Could someone please give me some pointers about doing the same? Thanks. Abhinav. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 21 21:27:27 2003 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 VAA18904 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:27:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0M2jHt04127 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:45:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M2jGJ04124 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:45:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18894 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:26:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M2afJ03072; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:36:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M2PFJ02761 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:25:15 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18621 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:06:55 -0500 (EST) From: Leping.Huang@nokia.com Received: from esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir05nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.37]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.1/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0M29M011784 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:09:22 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:10:21 +0200 Received: from esebe019.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.58]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:10:20 +0200 Received: from toebe001.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.24.109.35]) by esebe019.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:10:19 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [manet] SAODV(corrected) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:10:13 +0900 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [manet] SAODV(corrected) Thread-Index: AcLApUOI8wfyKg7eRQa4VbgoFZEF7gBFA1Iw To: , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2003 02:10:19.0389 (UTC) FILETIME=[699012D0:01C2C1BB] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0M2PFJ02762 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Manel, Zhen: > Any node > with the second signature can reply even though it actually does not have > route to A. >If you have received a RREQ then you _do_ have (or you had and >now it has expired) a route to A. I remember some guy has mentioned "wormhole" attack here(manet ML). Wormhole attack means that two malicious node cooperate with each other by establishing a VPN between each other. When a malicious node "A" near the source node S receive a RREQ, it will forward this RREQ to malicious node "B" near the destination through this VPN. As a result, "B" can claim to the destination D that it has the shortest path to source node S. Similar to the "overhear" mentioned by zhen, I think it is difficult to use SAODV alone to prevent such attack. BTW, I feel double signature is the most interesting part of SAODV for me, because it can utilize the route cache in the intermediate node. Manel, do you know some rough estimation about the routing protocol performance degradation when we disable route reply in AODV/SAODV in intermediate node. yours Leping -----Original Message----- From: ext Manel Guerrero Zapata [mailto:manel.guerrero-zapata@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 1:52 AM To: ext zhen Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] SAODV(corrected) Hi :) > I agree. But what if the node does not reply according to the AODV. The only field that the node can change is the lifetime of the route (the rest are validated by the signature, so they are forced to be according to the AODV). > Any node > with the second signature can reply even though it actually does not have > route to A. If you have received a RREQ then you _do_ have (or you had and now it has expired) a route to A. > still need instruction :) I hope this clarifies the thing. And anyway, if you want a more secure approach use the SAODV sigle signature extension instead of the double signature extensions. BR/Manel > regards > > Zhen > _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jan 21 21:52:23 2003 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 VAA19620 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0M3ADf06009 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:10:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M3ADJ06006 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:10:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19615 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M2thJ04571; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:55:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M2jcJ04153 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:45:38 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA18902 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:27:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18803 invoked by uid 417); 22 Jan 2003 02:30:43 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2003 02:30:43 -0000 Received: from ankur ([203.94.199.96]) (AUTH: LOGIN ankurjain@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:30:36 -0700 Message-ID: <000201c2c1bf$09a7c760$60c75ecb@ankur> Reply-To: "Ankur Jain" From: "Ankur Jain" To: jw2000@excite.com Cc: manet@ietf.org References: <20030121180123.D45EC3A1C@xprdmailfe27.nwk.excite.com> Subject: Re: [manet] Bluetooth simulation Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:00:51 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0088_01C2C1B1.B53DE5E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C2C1B1.B53DE5E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jack, For Bluetooth simulation, you can use ns2. There is an extension = developed by IBM Research Labs, India and you can download it from = research.ibm.com or follow the link from the main ns2 website. - Ankur ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Jack Wang=20 To: manet@ietf.org=20 Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:31 PM Subject: [manet] Bluetooth simulation Hi All: Has any research been done about the simulation of Bluetooth? Is = there any software that can be used for simulating the performance of = Bluetooth? How about GloMoSim? Is there any particular discussion group = for Bluetooth? Thanks a lot.=20 Jack =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C2C1B1.B53DE5E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Jack,
 
For Bluetooth simulation, you can use = ns2. There is=20 an extension developed by IBM Research Labs, India and you can download = it from=20 research.ibm.com or follow the link from the main ns2 = website.
 
- Ankur
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Jack = Wang=20
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 = 11:31=20 PM
Subject: [manet] Bluetooth=20 simulation

Hi All:

Has = any=20 research been done about the simulation of Bluetooth? Is there = any=20 software that can be used for simulating the performance of = Bluetooth?=20 How about GloMoSim? Is there any particular discussion group for = Bluetooth?

Thanks a lot.=20

Jack



Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized = portal on=20 the Web! ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C2C1B1.B53DE5E0-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 22 03:48:21 2003 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 DAA19281 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:48:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0M96ID04200 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:06:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M96IJ04197 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:06:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA19268 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:47:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M8o7J03153; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:50:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M8dhJ02966 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:39:43 -0500 Received: from luna.tlmat.unican.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18844 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:21:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mizar.tlmat.unican.es (mizar.tlmat.unican.es [193.144.186.38]) by luna.tlmat.unican.es with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.1) id JAA18737; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:59:08 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20030122085523.00b69b88@luna.tlmat.unican.es> X-Sender: ramon@luna.tlmat.unican.es X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:18:19 +0100 To: "Ankur Jain" , gupta@cpsc.ucalgary.ca From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ram=F3n?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_Ag=FCero?= Subject: Re: [manet] Pointers to modifying the linux kernel for implementation of a routingprotocol Cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <002d01c2c182$31ab14c0$6fc75ecb@ankur> References: <3E2C8166.2050704@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0M8diJ02967 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Ankur and Abnihav, please let me give my two cents contribution: At 00:46 22/01/2003 +0530, Ankur Jain wrote: >Hi Abhinav, > >Routing protocol can be implemented in Linux's user space only without >making any modification in kernel code. Existing implementations of DSR may >be of a great help to you. I do not fully agree with you. As far as I know there are not many current implementations of DSR for Linux, at least I have not been able to find them ;-). Please refer to http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/manet/current/msg00056.html. The implementation which the message refers to is based on the Netfilter framework, but is definitively a kernel development, in the shape of loadable modules. If you think about it, this is the only way it can be handled (at least DSR). The current draft states that the DSR header (which appears on every data packet) has to be placed just between IP and transport layer headers. There is no way to make this on the user space... (al least to my understanding). What is true is that using this Netfilter stuff it is not necessary to hack the kernel itself. The BSD implementation of DSR (as far as I know) is based on a virtual network interface. If you refer to another routing protocol, such as AODV, you are going to find much more available implementations (Uppsala, NIST,...). AODV is "much more" a user space implementation, as the control messages are transmitted over traditional datagram sockets (UDP). But again, there has to be some kernel support, normally through the Netfilter architecture. > > I am trying to modify the linux kernel for implementation of a routing > > protocol for manet on laptops running Linux 7.3 and using IEEE 802.11b. > > Could someone please give me some pointers about doing the same? I think that both the Netfilter (www.netfilter.org) and the virtual network driver (http://www.linux.it/kerneldocs/vinter/vinter.html) options are suitable. Bear in mind that there is a large number of ongoing projects based on Netfilter architecture, so I would go for that one. In any case, you do not have to "strictly" modify Linux kernel, but just add some new functionalities, normally as loadable kernel modules. HTH Br, Ramón _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 22 04:19:23 2003 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 EAA19990 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:19:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0M9bLE06532 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:37:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M9bKJ06524 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:37:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19970 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:18:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M9JRJ05407; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:19:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M98LJ04941 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:08:21 -0500 Received: from web40406.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA19318 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:49:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030122085319.50192.qmail@web40406.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [193.95.79.209] by web40406.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:53:19 CET Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:53:19 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?alouini=20khalif?= To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] help : very important 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit hi , 1 is there any metric or paper which speak about a convergence in time of some distributed clustering algorithms for ad hoc network 2 is there any paper which deal with comparaision between failure detectors techniques (metrics) in ad hoc environment 3 papers for groupmembership 4 what about real time distributed algorithms for ad hoc networks (papers ??) thank in advance ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 22 05:17:14 2003 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 FAA21041 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:17:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0MAZCn10225 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:35:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MAZCJ10222 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:35:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21038 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MALcJ09523; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:21:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MACDJ09205 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:12:13 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA20655 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:53:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.36]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.1/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0M9xSt01984 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:59:28 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:57:09 +0200 Received: from mgw.research.nokia.com ([172.21.33.76]) by esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:57:08 +0200 Received: from nokia.com (manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112]) by mgw.research.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21784; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:57:07 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: mgw.research.nokia.com: Host manet.research.nokia.com [172.21.37.112] claimed to be nokia.com Message-ID: <3E2E6A9F.3010600@nokia.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:55:43 +0200 From: Manel Guerrero Zapata User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020623 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ext Leping.Huang@nokia.com" CC: zhen@waffle.cs.dal.ca, manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] SAODV(corrected) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2003 09:57:08.0224 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0212000:01C2C1FC] 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Leping :) Comments inlined. BR/Manel Guerrero ext Leping.Huang@nokia.com wrote: > Hi, Manel, Zhen: [...] > I remember some guy has mentioned "wormhole" attack here(manet ML). > > Wormhole attack means that two malicious node cooperate with each other > by establishing a VPN between each other. When a malicious node "A" > near the source node S receive a RREQ, it will forward this RREQ to > malicious node "B" near the destination through this VPN. As a result, > "B" can claim to the destination D that it has the shortest path to > source node S. > Similar to the "overhear" mentioned by zhen, I think it is difficult to > use SAODV alone to prevent such attack. You should read this paper: Manel Guerrero Zapata and N. Asokan: "Securing Ad hoc Routing Protocols". In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Workshop on Wireless Security (WiSe 2002), pages 1-10. September 2002. In there we have already answered that question: | In addition, there is another type of attack that cannot be detected by | SAODV: tunneling attacks. In that type of attack, two malicious nodes | simulate that they have a link between them (that is, they can send | and receive messages directly to each other). They achieve this by tunneling | AODV messages between them (probably in an encrypted way). In this way they | could achieve having certain traffic through them. | | In our opinion, no security scheme has been able, so far, to detect this. | Misbehaving detection schemes could, in principle, detect the so-called tunnel | attacks. If the monitor sees a routing message with Hop_Count = X + 1 being | sent by a node but did not see a routing message with Hop_Count = X being | sent to the same node, then the node is either fabricating the routing message | or there is a tunnel. In either case it is cause for raising the alarm. | Nevertheless, this kind of scheme has as main problems that there is no way for | any node to validate the authenticity of the misbehavior reports and the there | is the possibility of falsely detecting misbehavior nodes. Therefore, we don't | consider it as a feasible solution so far. There is an updated version of the paper (just in case you don't have access to the ACM portal) in: http://ant.eupvg.upc.es/~tarom/guerrero_wise_2002.ps.gz And some other related papers in: http://ant.eupvg.upc.es/~tarom/saodv.html This question should really go to an SADOV FAQ because I think I already answered in this list. ;P > BTW, I feel double signature is the most interesting part of SAODV for > me, because it can utilize the route cache in the intermediate node. > Manel, do you know some rough estimation about the routing protocol > performance degradation when we disable route reply in AODV/SAODV in > intermediate node. I don't have any estimation about that, but of course it will really depend on the mobility pattern of the nodes and on their communication pattern (Do most of the nodes communicate with only a few nodes during a long period? Are they having exchange of data with different nodes at the same time?) > yours > Leping _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 22 10:28:32 2003 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 KAA27864 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:28:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0MFkc530462 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:46:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MFkbJ30459 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:46:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27832 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:28:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MFLWJ28362; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:21:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MFGZJ28152 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:16:35 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26514 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:57:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0MF1OJH006205 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:01:24 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:01:34 -0400 From: zhen To: manet@ietf.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Message-ID: <3E363B3A@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] searching function through mailing archive 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, Webmaster, Since this site is the place where many people seek answers of problems, why don't we add on searching functionality. Thus no need to ask same questions all the time. Also facilitate the need of looking up later upon a vague impression. regards Zhen Zhen _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 22 10:52:21 2003 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 KAA28662 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:52:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0MGAPC32297 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:10:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MGAOJ32294 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:10:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28644 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:51:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MG1OJ31163; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:01:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MFvgJ31003 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:57:42 -0500 Received: from infres.enst.fr (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28287 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:39:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from schaula (dhcp162-221.enst.fr [137.194.162.221]) by infres.enst.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C704191C; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:42:27 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005d01c2c22c$d9faff50$dda2c289@galaxy.enst.fr> From: "Moustafa Hasnaa" To: "NS-Users" Cc: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:42:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005A_01C2C235.3BAC5480" 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] MAC 802.11 concerns 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties. ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C2C235.3BAC5480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, Concerning the mac-802.11 implemented under ns;=20 I need to know how can we access the sent beacons between neighbor = nodes. More =20 specifically, how can a node get this info. !!!! I will be so thankful for any reply. Regards. Hasnaa Moustafa. ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C2C235.3BAC5480 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,
    = Concerning the=20 mac-802.11 implemented under ns;
    I need = to know how=20 can we access the sent beacons between neighbor nodes.=20 More    
    = specifically,=20     how can a node get this info. !!!!
 
I will be so thankful for = any=20 reply.
 
Regards.
 
Hasnaa = Moustafa.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C2C235.3BAC5480-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 22 12:26:17 2003 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 MAA01589 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:26:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0MHiNP06889 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:44:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MHiNJ06886 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:44:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01580 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:25:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MHV1J05688; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:31:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MHO5J05441 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:24:05 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01227 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:08:54 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [66.57.224.18] From: "leb7" To: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:08:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2003 17:08:54.0086 (UTC) FILETIME=[F139F660:01C2C238] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] dsr and more 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, first i would apreciate it if someone can link me to a current draft for dsr. the one i have is: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-07.txt which expired august 2002. also, i am interested in knowing what everyone thinks about mutlimedia (audio and video) over ad hoc networks. what development are underway? are there any specific protocols for this purpose? who is working on this in general? thanks, louis _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 00:37:44 2003 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 AAA17978 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:37:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0N5u5517780 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:56:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0N5u5J17777 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:56:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17967 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:37:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0N5bDJ16716; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:37:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0N5TWJ16094 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:29:32 -0500 Received: from acsn03.bu.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17499 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (lafcadio@localhost) by acsn03.bu.edu ((8.9.3.buoit.v1.1.RewriteVBS.ACS)/) with ESMTP id AAA34894 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:14:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:14:07 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Mercurio To: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030121180123.D45EC3A1C@xprdmailfe27.nwk.excite.com> Message-ID: Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] Looking for 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Has anyone worked on an FSR implementation for ns2? Also, can someone comment on the state of the FSR Internet-Draft? Thanks, m -- Michael Mercurio lafcadio@bu.edu _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 03:52:25 2003 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 DAA00536 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:52:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0N9ApY08238 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:10:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0N9ApJ08235 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:10:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA00507 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0N8mhJ05771; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:48:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0N8fTJ05534 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:41:29 -0500 Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA29819 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:22:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from parsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.com ([10.193.117.128]) by p-mail1 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:26:12 +0100 Received: from LANMHS20.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.21.60]) by parsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:25:56 +0100 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [manet] SAODV X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:25:56 +0100 Message-ID: <0489A7888F080B4BA73B53F7E145F29ADE2EC1@lanmhs20.rd.francetelecom.fr> Thread-Topic: [manet] SAODV Thread-Index: AcK9hoxP7AQA+P50SG2XctgqL+aAkwFMjD7Q From: "MEDDOUR Djamal Eddine thesard FTRD/DAC/LAN" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2003 08:25:56.0570 (UTC) FILETIME=[0D2EBBA0:01C2C2B9] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0N8fTJ05535 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello, Is there anyone who installed a cross-compiled Linux kernel for IPAQ? if yes please send me the installation instruction Thanks for any help Djamal _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 07:43:13 2003 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 HAA04511 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:43:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0ND1he21958 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:01:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0ND1hJ21955 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:01:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04496 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:42:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NCoaJ21502; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:50:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NCjAJ21322 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:45:10 -0500 Received: from mail.cit.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04143 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:26:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from EEB174W2K27DP (unverified [157.190.65.110]) by cit.ie (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with SMTP id ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:19:41 +0000 Reply-To: From: "Dr Dirk Pesch" To: "MEDDOUR Djamal Eddine thesard FTRD/DAC/LAN" , Subject: RE: [manet] SAODV Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:32:54 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <0489A7888F080B4BA73B53F7E145F29ADE2EC1@lanmhs20.rd.francetelecom.fr> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Go to handhelds.org and you find lots of info on LINUX for handhelds in particular the IPAQ Dirk -----Original Message----- From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of MEDDOUR Djamal Eddine thesard FTRD/DAC/LAN Sent: 23 January 2003 08:26 To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] SAODV Hello, Is there anyone who installed a cross-compiled Linux kernel for IPAQ? if yes please send me the installation instruction Thanks for any help Djamal _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet -------------------Legal Disclaimer--------------------------------------- The above electronic mail transmission is confidential and intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Its contents may be protected by legal and/or professional privilege. Should it be received by you in error please contact the sender at the above quoted email address. Any unauthorised form of reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited. The Institute does not guarantee the security of any information electronically transmitted and is not liable if the information contained in this communication is not a proper and complete record of the message as transmitted by the sender nor for any delay in its receipt. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ -------------------Legal Disclaimer--------------------------------------- The above electronic mail transmission is confidential and intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Its contents may be protected by legal and/or professional privilege. Should it be received by you in error please contact the sender at the above quoted email address. Any unauthorised form of reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited. The Institute does not guarantee the security of any information electronically transmitted and is not liable if the information contained in this communication is not a proper and complete record of the message as transmitted by the sender nor for any delay in its receipt. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 10:54:48 2003 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 KAA10968 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:54:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NGDNK03715 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:13:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NGDNJ03712 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:13:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10953 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:54:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NFuoJ01927; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:56:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NFp7J01718 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:51:07 -0500 Received: from smtp.uc3m.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10335 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:32:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD294325F for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:35:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from varpa.it.uc3m.es (varpa.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.253]) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9F099E6C for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:35:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from pandora (pandora.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.89]) by varpa.it.uc3m.es (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id QAA00385 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:35:25 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: varpa.it.uc3m.es: Host pandora.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.89] claimed to be pandora Message-ID: <002501c2c2f5$093a31a0$598b75a3@pandora> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Garc=EDa?= To: Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:35:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi everybody, I am very interesting in the support of QoS on adhoc networks. I will be very pleased if someone could help me finding papers or proyects related to this subject. Thank you very much, Carlos García _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 11:03:07 2003 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 LAA11275 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:03:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NGLgR04172 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:21:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NGLgJ04169 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:21:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11271 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:02:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NFw8J02007; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:58:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NFrcJ01814 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:53:38 -0500 Received: from edgar1.colorado.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10427 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:34:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from colorado.edu (ecee189-10-dhcp.Colorado.EDU [128.138.189.10]) by edgar1.colorado.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id h0NFbsI19210; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:37:55 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3E300C39.5040202@colorado.edu> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:37:29 -0700 From: Shweta Bhandare Reply-To: Shweta.Bhandare@colorado.edu Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MEDDOUR Djamal Eddine thesard FTRD/DAC/LAN CC: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] SAODV References: <0489A7888F080B4BA73B53F7E145F29ADE2EC1@lanmhs20.rd.francetelecom.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Here are some instructions to build the cross compiler - the skiff tool chain is the best. http://www.handhelds.org/minihowto/building-x.html http://handhelds.org/download/toolchain/ - is the website to download the toolchain Regards, Shweta. MEDDOUR Djamal Eddine thesard FTRD/DAC/LAN wrote: > Hello, > > Is there anyone who installed a cross-compiled Linux kernel for IPAQ? if > yes please send me the installation instruction > > > Thanks for any help > > Djamal > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 23 13:02:56 2003 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 NAA15214 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:02:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NILWK13148 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:21:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NILWJ13145 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:21:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15199 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:02:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NHoHJ10982; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:50:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NHmXJ10903 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:48:33 -0500 Received: from m1.cs.man.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14077 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhost by m1.cs.man.ac.uk (8.8.8/AL/MJK-2.0) id RAA29142; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:32:46 GMT Received: from rms223.oak.man.ac.uk ([130.88.226.154]) by mailhost with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18blDX-0006l9-00; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:32:44 +0000 From: John Tapsell Reply-To: tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk To: Carlos =?iso-8859-1?q?Garc=EDa?= Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:28:45 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <002501c2c2f5$093a31a0$598b75a3@pandora> In-Reply-To: <002501c2c2f5$093a31a0$598b75a3@pandora> Cc: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_TZCM+Mus5NnxEVg"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200301231728.51320.tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --Boundary-02=_TZCM+Mus5NnxEVg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Disclaimer: I know nothing. My knowledge is incomplete and ba and you=20 shouldn't trust it at all. I had a look at this, and had a quite few problems trying to set up such a= =20 network. Basically what I managed to learn was: * The idea has been around longer than I've been alive. * Hardly anyone seems to be working on it. * RSVP was played about with a lot, but died on adhoc's because it is trying to enforce stateful connections on a stateless network. * You need to have a very clear idea of what properties your network has.= =20 How much everything moves about, whether there are groupings, whether there= =20 are fixed points, etc. * If things are going to be moving about, then the QoS is basically doome= d=20 :) So switch your focus on looking whether best-effort is good enough. =20 * Implementations of various QoS systems for linux are in a bad state. A= n=20 implementation of dRSVP that I tried to set up had bugs that the author was= =20 still trying to fix. ( I found that out _after_ spending ages trying to fi= nd=20 out what was wrong). I did manage to get another implementation of dRSVP=20 working tho. Although this was through a lot of sweat and blood - mostly d= ue=20 to my ignorance in this area. I still don't really get the whole class bas= ed=20 queueing system. * If you want to study QoS, make sure you study and understand routing on= =20 adhocs first. * It seems to me, in my very humble opinion, that there isn't likely to b= e a=20 'wonder' protocol that works on any network, but rather you need to evaluat= e=20 the network closely and see what fits best. Take what I've said with a pinch of salt, but I hope I can help in some sma= ll=20 way. JohnFlux On Thursday 23 January 2003 3:35 pm, Carlos Garc=EDa wrote: > Hi everybody, >=20 > I am very interesting in the support of QoS on adhoc networks. > > I will be very pleased if someone could help me finding papers or proyects > related to this subject. > > Thank you very much, > Carlos Garc=EDa > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --Boundary-02=_TZCM+Mus5NnxEVg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+MCZTyDMW0/+i32wRAs34AJ9RGYwv1CGPdLmEQRHfY5q/wFX//gCfXx5b PCpIXX1W1Wzod3ZouM9+Fy0= =fz1u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_TZCM+Mus5NnxEVg-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 13:30:13 2003 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 NAA15931 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NImoJ15119 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:48:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NImnJ15111 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:48:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15912 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:29:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NIT1J13499; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:29:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NIRmJ13452 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:27:48 -0500 Received: from ponyexpress.ee.columbia.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15295 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:08:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from SWEETPEA (sweetpea.comet.columbia.edu [128.59.65.202]) by ponyexpress.ee.columbia.edu (8.12.5/8.12.1) with SMTP id h0NIGWGc005205; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:16:32 -0500 From: "Andrew T. Campbell" To: , "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Carlos_Garc=EDa'?=" Cc: , "Andrew Campbell \(E-mail\)" Subject: RE: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:08:49 -0500 Message-ID: <00c901c2c30a$7b2f9380$ca413b80@SWEETPEA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <200301231728.51320.tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> Importance: Normal 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello John and Carlos: We looked at both stateful and (INSIGNIA http://comet.columbia.edu/insignia/ stateless (SWAN http://comet.columbia.edu/swan/) approaches to MANET-QOS. There are papers and code there. There are various tradeoffs to consider but I now feel that the solution space is more likely to be dominated by stateless solutions (SWAN is one) because they are less complex to implement and better suited to cope with mobility. I'm sure there are a number of interesting solutions that lie between these stateful and stateless approaches. I do not think RSVP in a MANET is a good idea BTW. IDs for our work: INSIGNIA: http://www.comet.columbia.edu/insignia/draft-ietf-manet-insignia-01.txt SWAN: http://comet.columbia.edu/swan/draft-ahn-swan-manet-00.txt QOS has never really been on the radar screen for the WG but maybe a good scope item for the new IRTF MANET initiative. Its still early days for this topic I suspect. --- Andrew http://comet.columbia.edu/~campbell > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > John Tapsell > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:29 PM > To: Carlos García > Cc: manet@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks > > > Disclaimer: I know nothing. My knowledge is incomplete and > ba and you > shouldn't trust it at all. > > I had a look at this, and had a quite few problems trying to > set up such a > network. Basically what I managed to learn was: > * The idea has been around longer than I've been alive. > * Hardly anyone seems to be working on it. > * RSVP was played about with a lot, but died on adhoc's > because it is > trying to enforce stateful connections on a stateless network. > * You need to have a very clear idea of what properties > your network has. > How much everything moves about, whether there are groupings, > whether there > are fixed points, etc. > * If things are going to be moving about, then the QoS is > basically doomed > :) So switch your focus on looking whether best-effort is > good enough. > * Implementations of various QoS systems for linux are in a > bad state. An > implementation of dRSVP that I tried to set up had bugs that > the author was > still trying to fix. ( I found that out _after_ spending > ages trying to find > out what was wrong). I did manage to get another > implementation of dRSVP > working tho. Although this was through a lot of sweat and > blood - mostly due > to my ignorance in this area. I still don't really get the > whole class based > queueing system. > * If you want to study QoS, make sure you study and > understand routing on > adhocs first. > * It seems to me, in my very humble opinion, that there > isn't likely to be a > 'wonder' protocol that works on any network, but rather you > need to evaluate > the network closely and see what fits best. > > Take what I've said with a pinch of salt, but I hope I can > help in some small > way. > > JohnFlux > > On Thursday 23 January 2003 3:35 pm, Carlos García wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > I am very interesting in the support of QoS on adhoc networks. > > > > I will be very pleased if someone could help me finding > papers or proyects > > related to this subject. > > > > Thank you very much, > > Carlos García > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Jan 23 14:40:50 2003 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 OAA18162 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:40:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NJxTD20056 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:59:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NJxSJ20050 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:59:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18148 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NJd1J18712; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:39:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NJaSJ17983 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:36:28 -0500 Received: from smtp.uc3m.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17249 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:17:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C4343159 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:20:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from lmserv2.lab.it.uc3m.es (lmserv2.lab.it.uc3m.es [163.117.144.152]) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A06D99E9A for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:20:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from varpa.it.uc3m.es (pablo@varpa.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.253]) by lmserv2.lab.it.uc3m.es (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA05205 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:20:43 +0100 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:20:43 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pablo_Serrano_Y=E1=F1ez-Mingot?= Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pablo_Serrano_Y=E1=F1ez-Mingot?= To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? In-Reply-To: <00c901c2c30a$7b2f9380$ca413b80@SWEETPEA> Message-ID: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi all, I fully agree with 'SWAN philosophy', in the sense that only a practical approach is feasible in ad hoc networks (via a simple service differentiation). However, for me there is still an unanswered question, of "certain importance": When is needed QoS in ad hoc networks? I think ad hoc networks are created towards one concrete purpose, therefore all traffic might be considered of the same importance. I don't think ad hoc networks are going to be used as "multipurpose networks", where service differentiation is a must, at least during X months/years. Does anybody have an actual application where there is a true need for QoS? "Its still early days for this topic I suspect", Andrew stated. I also agree here. Cheers, Pbl _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 17:26:03 2003 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 RAA22029 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:26:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NMik431325 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:44:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NMikJ31322 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:44:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22020 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:25:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NMYuJ30288; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:34:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NMWZJ30225 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:32:35 -0500 Received: from cs.tamu.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21761 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from dogbert.cs.tamu.edu (IDENT:4054@dogbert [128.194.130.18]) by cs.tamu.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h0NMGnF27138 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:16:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (b0l4549@localhost) by dogbert.cs.tamu.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h0NMGmw18416 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:16:48 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: dogbert.cs.tamu.edu: b0l4549 owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:16:48 -0600 (CST) From: Bin Lu X-Sender: b0l4549@dogbert To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] IP spoofing in ad hoc networks? 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, I have a question about IP spoofing in MANET. As you must know, a malicious node could issue DoS attacks or masquerade its true identity by using a source address which is invalid or forged to appear to have originated from another legitimate node. In wired networks, filters are used to prevent from IP spoofing attacks. Since ad hoc networks don't have fixed infrastructures, which makes it hard or almost impossible to install filters, is there any other solution yet to deal with the problem? Or is there any work done on this topic so far? Thanks a lot! Bin _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 17:28:08 2003 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 RAA22092 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:28:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NMkpl31448 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:46:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NMkpJ31445 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:46:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22079 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:27:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NMb7J30502; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:37:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NMaIJ30329 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:36:18 -0500 Received: from web14310.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA21814 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:17:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030123222032.40265.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [147.26.101.49] by web14310.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:20:32 PST Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:20:32 -0800 (PST) From: Yalin Wang To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [manet] any exiting package for MANET security? 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, all First I would appreciate if someone can give some hints on MANET security. Is there any project on this? Also, I am wondering if GLOMOSIM can be modified to apply some security package (or algorithm). So we can simulate and do analysis. And I know there is security class build in Java, but how about C? Regards, Yalin __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 18:10:34 2003 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 SAA23588 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:10:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NNTGg01911 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:29:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NNTGJ01908 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:29:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23567 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:10:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NN7rJ00815; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:07:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NN6GJ32542 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:06:16 -0500 Received: from m1.cs.man.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22745 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:47:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhost by m1.cs.man.ac.uk (8.8.8/AL/MJK-2.0) id WAA09546; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:50:29 GMT Received: from rms223.oak.man.ac.uk ([130.88.226.154]) by mailhost with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18bqB0-00049l-00 for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:50:26 +0000 From: John Tapsell Reply-To: tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk To: manet@ietf.org Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:46:31 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_HDHM+W/aXyEcU7e"; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200301232246.31635.tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk> Subject: [manet] (ignore) 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --Boundary-02=_HDHM+W/aXyEcU7e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please ignore this email. My most sincere appologies for it. For some reason my emails on this mailing list are failing gpg signature tests, and nobody seems to be signing so I can check theirs. So this is a test email that is over multiple lines. Sorry again for any inconvience. Hopefully this is now long enough to cover all the cases - multiple lines, lines longer than 80, lines shorter than 80, etc. John --Boundary-02=_HDHM+W/aXyEcU7e Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+MHDHyDMW0/+i32wRAg/TAJ40WB9510EdMoc5hiTvLzMuBhqaTQCeLvzH Y0bM5F83bM2uRR+5fp8saOE= =W04i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_HDHM+W/aXyEcU7e-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 18:16:14 2003 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 SAA23857 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:16:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NNYuP02245 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:34:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NNYuJ02242 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:34:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23846 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:15:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NNJbJ01409; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:19:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NNI8J01324 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:18:08 -0500 Received: from web40709.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA23300 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:58:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030123230221.81177.qmail@web40709.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [129.10.115.160] by web40709.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:02:21 PST Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:02:21 -0800 (PST) From: feng zhu Subject: Re: [manet] any exiting package for MANET security? To: Yalin Wang , manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030123222032.40265.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Maybe you can find some information from my reading list. http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zhufeng/security_manet.html Some of the authors of those papers listed the projects on their web pages, such as, http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/projects.html Some of the research groups, which those authors come from, also listed the projects on their web pages, such as, http://www.cs.ucla.edu/wing/projects/scan.html Hope it helpful. Best, --Feng --- Yalin Wang wrote: > > > Hi, all > > First I would appreciate if someone can give some > hints on MANET security. Is there any project on > this? > > Also, I am wondering if GLOMOSIM can be modified to > apply some security package (or algorithm). So we > can > simulate and do analysis. > > And I know there is security class build in Java, > but > how about C? > > Regards, > Yalin > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up > now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ===== ============================== ZHU, Feng zf_manet@yahoo.com http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zhufeng/security_manet.html __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 18:53:54 2003 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 SAA24714 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:53:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0O0Cbk05120 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:12:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O0CbJ05117 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:12:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24707 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:53:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NNs8J03785; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:54:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NNqhJ03734 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:52:43 -0500 Received: from cs.tamu.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24359 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:33:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from dogbert.cs.tamu.edu (IDENT:4054@dogbert [128.194.130.18]) by cs.tamu.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h0NNasF02062 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:36:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (b0l4549@localhost) by dogbert.cs.tamu.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h0NNas719955 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:36:54 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: dogbert.cs.tamu.edu: b0l4549 owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:36:53 -0600 (CST) From: Bin Lu X-Sender: b0l4549@dogbert To: manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks-security problem In-Reply-To: <00c901c2c30a$7b2f9380$ca413b80@SWEETPEA> Message-ID: 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 h0NNqhJ03735 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I know "security" problem is not a consideration when designing a QoS model, but probably because my interest is security, I can't help thinking about it when looking at QoS architectures. In stateless models, once the packets are differentiated by the classifier residing at border hosts, the intermediate nodes don't keep per-flow information and therefore don't have any control over the admission. The intermediate nodes roughly just forward it according to the service levels marked by the border hosts. But the problem is, what if a selfish, greedy or malicious node who cooperates with the classifier node steals the services? Or the classifier mismarks the packets? It is easy because in some models (such as FQMM) the source node even classify the packets by itself. The intermediate nodes can't do flow admissions and therefore won't be able to detect any intrusions. It is different in stateful QoS models. Since the intermediate nodes still keep the per-flow information, they can check or perform admission control. Is there any solution for this problem in stateless models, or is there any existing technique that can help solve the problem? Any hint will help. Thanks in advance! Bin On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Andrew T. Campbell wrote: > > Hello John and Carlos: > > We looked at both stateful and > (INSIGNIA http://comet.columbia.edu/insignia/ > stateless (SWAN http://comet.columbia.edu/swan/) > approaches to MANET-QOS. There are papers > and code there. > > There are various tradeoffs to consider > but I now feel that the solution space > is more likely to be dominated by > stateless solutions (SWAN is one) because > they are less complex to implement and better suited > to cope with mobility. > > I'm sure there are a number of interesting > solutions that lie between these stateful and stateless > approaches. I do not think RSVP in a MANET is a > good idea BTW. > > IDs for our work: > > INSIGNIA: > > http://www.comet.columbia.edu/insignia/draft-ietf-manet-insignia-01.txt > > > SWAN: > > http://comet.columbia.edu/swan/draft-ahn-swan-manet-00.txt > > QOS has never really been on the radar screen for the WG > but maybe a good scope item for the new IRTF MANET initiative. > > Its still early days for this topic I suspect. > > --- > Andrew > http://comet.columbia.edu/~campbell > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > John Tapsell > > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:29 PM > > To: Carlos García > > Cc: manet@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks > > > > > > Disclaimer: I know nothing. My knowledge is incomplete and > > ba and you > > shouldn't trust it at all. > > > > I had a look at this, and had a quite few problems trying to > > set up such a > > network. Basically what I managed to learn was: > > * The idea has been around longer than I've been alive. > > * Hardly anyone seems to be working on it. > > * RSVP was played about with a lot, but died on adhoc's > > because it is > > trying to enforce stateful connections on a stateless network. > > * You need to have a very clear idea of what properties > > your network has. > > How much everything moves about, whether there are groupings, > > whether there > > are fixed points, etc. > > * If things are going to be moving about, then the QoS is > > basically doomed > > :) So switch your focus on looking whether best-effort is > > good enough. > > * Implementations of various QoS systems for linux are in a > > bad state. An > > implementation of dRSVP that I tried to set up had bugs that > > the author was > > still trying to fix. ( I found that out _after_ spending > > ages trying to find > > out what was wrong). I did manage to get another > > implementation of dRSVP > > working tho. Although this was through a lot of sweat and > > blood - mostly due > > to my ignorance in this area. I still don't really get the > > whole class based > > queueing system. > > * If you want to study QoS, make sure you study and > > understand routing on > > adhocs first. > > * It seems to me, in my very humble opinion, that there > > isn't likely to be a > > 'wonder' protocol that works on any network, but rather you > > need to evaluate > > the network closely and see what fits best. > > > > Take what I've said with a pinch of salt, but I hope I can > > help in some small > > way. > > > > JohnFlux > > > > On Thursday 23 January 2003 3:35 pm, Carlos García wrote: > > > Hi everybody, > > > > > > I am very interesting in the support of QoS on adhoc networks. > > > > > > I will be very pleased if someone could help me finding > > papers or proyects > > > related to this subject. > > > > > > Thank you very much, > > > Carlos García > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Jan 23 19:16:46 2003 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 TAA25229 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0O0ZUI06186 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:35:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O0ZUJ06183 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:35:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25224 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:16:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O0JIJ05445; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:19:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O0HpJ05372 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:17:51 -0500 Received: from [140.32.132.66] (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24840 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:58:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.nps.navy.mil by [140.32.132.66] via smtpd (for [132.151.6.1]) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:55:30 -0800 Received: from ziggy ([131.120.179.220]) by capella.nps.navy.mil (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0NNtKvD011267; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:55:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? From: Rex Buddenberg To: Pablo Serrano =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Y=E1=F1ez-Mingot?= Cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 23 Jan 2003 15:46:38 -0800 Message-Id: <1043365599.7752.76.camel@ziggy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0O0HpJ05373 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Pablo, The military scenarios for MANET are ones where some QoS control is needed. There is lots of traffic -- expect it to exceed the capacity available forever. And some traffic is more urgent than other. So some means of priority queueing and probably some admittance control is going to be required. But .... We have empirical evidence even in the wired Internet that most QoS control scheme cures are worse than the disease. The stateful orientation of RSVP is an obvious one, but even diff-serv showed up a lot of warts. But the IETF diff-serv exercise has to be leavened with at least two comments: - MANET is expressly designed to handle topology volatility. That volatility is guaranteed to make any QoS control scheme harder than in a comparatively stable wired internet. - the military MANET scenario is one where the standard ISP trick of overprovisioning isn't readily available. If you don't care for the military scenario -- an army division on the move -- then an emergency services one might fit just as well. Consider the emergency response and comms needs for a large fire (e.g. forest fire) or a chem/bio attack on a civilian population and the applicability of MANET capability as a need pops right out. On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 11:20, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > Hi all, > > I fully agree with 'SWAN philosophy', in the sense that > only a practical approach is feasible in ad hoc networks > (via a simple service differentiation). > > However, for me there is still an unanswered question, > of "certain importance": When is needed QoS in ad hoc > networks? I think ad hoc networks are created towards > one concrete purpose, therefore all traffic might be > considered of the same importance. > > I don't think ad hoc networks are going to be used as > "multipurpose networks", where service differentiation > is a must, at least during X months/years. > > Does anybody have an actual application where there is > a true need for QoS? > > "Its still early days for this topic I suspect", > Andrew stated. I also agree here. > > Cheers, > > Pbl > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jan 24 03:50:52 2003 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 DAA13373 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 03:50:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0O98kk14038 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 04:08:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O98TJ13953 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 04:08:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13278 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 03:49:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O8nUJ12066; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 03:49:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O8iIJ11867 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 03:44:18 -0500 Received: from msweeper.seri.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12800 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 03:24:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.seri.co.uk (ex1.seri.co.uk) by msweeper.seri.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:22:41 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:28:01 -0000 Message-ID: <341710540F08E34498A057DEE04DAAD75AABD9@ex1.seri.co.uk> Thread-Topic: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? Thread-Index: AcLDH19xTWgtLBugQXG5a00LbI09RgAYl6BA From: "Martin Layley" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0O8iIJ11868 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit If you are looking to carry audio or video in real time, the QoS can provide feedback to the compression system:- the better the QoS, the greater the minimum bandwidth available for data and the shorter the data transit time, due to fewer re-tries. As the QoS diminishes, an adaptive coding scheme at application level can increase its compression rate accordingly. If there is no communication about QoS from link-layer or network layers to application, the QoS within a layer is still helpful, as if a system tries to maintain or improve QoS, then the application sees fewer dropouts. Martin Layley Samsung - SERI -----Original Message----- From: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot [mailto:pablo@it.uc3m.es] Sent: 23 January 2003 19:21 To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? Hi all, I fully agree with 'SWAN philosophy', in the sense that only a practical approach is feasible in ad hoc networks (via a simple service differentiation). However, for me there is still an unanswered question, of "certain importance": When is needed QoS in ad hoc networks? I think ad hoc networks are created towards one concrete purpose, therefore all traffic might be considered of the same importance. I don't think ad hoc networks are going to be used as "multipurpose networks", where service differentiation is a must, at least during X months/years. Does anybody have an actual application where there is a true need for QoS? "Its still early days for this topic I suspect", Andrew stated. I also agree here. Cheers, Pbl _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet The mail message has been scanned by MAILsweeper for content analysis. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 24 04:45:11 2003 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 EAA14354 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 04:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0OA48p17189 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 05:04:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OA47J17186 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 05:04:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14336 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 04:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O9tVJ16682; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 04:55:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O9rwJ16589 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 04:53:58 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14144 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 04:34:30 -0500 (EST) From: Leping.Huang@nokia.com Received: from esvir03nok.nokia.com (esvir03nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.35]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.1/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0O9eJt20223 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:40:20 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir03nok.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:37:58 +0200 Received: from esebe007.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.47]) by esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:37:57 +0200 Received: from toebe001.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.24.109.35]) by esebe007.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:37:54 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:37:48 +0900 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: ad hoc network application for demo Thread-Index: AcLDjEHLRqpkOzNpQve4JlOqBC3fCg== To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2003 09:37:54.0879 (UTC) FILETIME=[458224F0:01C2C38C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] ad hoc network application for demo 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi: I am considering how to demonstrate my ad hoc network testbed. What application you are usually using in your testbed? Can you give me some advise about some interesting application? except for ping/ftp:) I am thinking to find out a P2P file sharing application. If you know such application which can be run in Linux, please tell me also. Yours Leping --------------------------------------------------- Leping HUANG Research Engineer Nokia Research Center Tokyo 2-13-5, Nagata-cho Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0014, Japan Phone: +81-3-3592-3528 Fax: +81-3-3592-3555 leping.huang@nokia.com --------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 24 05:24:15 2003 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 FAA15074 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 05:24:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0OAhCM20367 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 05:43:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OAhCJ20364 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 05:43:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15062 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 05:23:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OANLJ18695; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 05:23:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OAMeJ18668 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 05:22:40 -0500 Received: from mail.rz.uni-ulm.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14649 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 05:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from informatik.uni-ulm.de (viadfn-isdn-150-2.rz.uni-ulm.de [134.60.150.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.rz.uni-ulm.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0OA6bmF028123 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:06:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3E3110F5.7090704@informatik.uni-ulm.de> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:09:57 +0100 From: Frank Kargl Organization: University of Ulm, Germany User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet Subject: Re: [manet] IP spoofing in ad hoc networks? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bin, Bin Lu wrote: > I have a question about IP spoofing in MANET. > > As you must know, a malicious node could issue DoS attacks or masquerade > its true identity by using a source address which is invalid or forged to > appear to have originated from another legitimate node. You are adressing a whole bunch of problems here. First it is a matter of IP address assignment. There are some drafts on this subject, e.g. Global Connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks - draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-00.txt or IP Address Autoconfiguration for Ad Hoc Networks - draft-perkins-manet-autoconf-00.txt (you might want to search for newer versions!) Given this, an IP says nothing about the identity of a node or its user. And of course you can use arbitrary IPs, even from other users. Even in the wired Internet, filters don't provide 100% security, as they are often realized only on border routers etc. Thus I can still happily spoof IP addresses within my subnet etc. > In wired > networks, filters are used to prevent from IP spoofing attacks. > Since ad hoc networks don't have fixed infrastructures, which makes it > hard or almost impossible to install filters, is there any other solution > yet to deal with the problem? Clearly I don't think that filters will be of much help in a MANET. IMHO you need to have an unforgable identity in your network which only can be provided on a cryptographic basis (with a digital signature issued by a TTP). There are a lot of things to discuss here: is the ID based on a user or on a device? Who is to work as a TTP? Do you get your ID on network entry? By whom? Or do you have a "life-long" ID generated long before you enter the MANET? ... Btw: if anyone believes that you actually can create an unforgeable ID without a TTP, I would be happy to discuss this. > Or is there any work done on this topic so > far? I know of no publications regarding this issue so far. You might want to take a look at http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zhufeng/security_manet.html, perhaps you find some paper that I missed. Additionally it is worth having a look at P2P networks as they face similar problems. I am currently writing my PhD thesis which is about creating an all-including security framework for MANETs (sounds rather megalomaniac, does it? ;-) which also tries to deal with this matter. Unfortunately all I have written so far is in german, but I will try to get some english publications ready in the near future. One interesting aspect here is that you don't really want to have a clear ID in a MANET. Otherwise it would be quite easy for anybody in the network, to trace your motions relativly to other nodes (with a perhaps known position). Therefor you might want to include the concept of pseudonyms which makes everything even more complex. Regards ... Frank -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Kargl Multimedia Computing, University of Ulm, Germany Mail:frank.kargl@informatik.uni-ulm.de http://www.uni-ulm.de/~fkargl/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Use the SOURCE, Luke ! I feel a great disturbance in the SOURCE. But beware of the Microsoft side of the SOURCE ! _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 24 09:42:26 2003 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 JAA21019 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:42:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0OF1S903619 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:01:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OF1SJ03616 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:01:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21008 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:41:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OEnAJ02951; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:49:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OEkYJ02827 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:46:34 -0500 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20558 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from zidane.cc.vt.edu (IDENT:mirapoint@zidane-lb.cc.vt.edu [10.1.1.13]) by lennier.cc.vt.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0OEUTm501867; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:30:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from tom ([198.70.228.46]) by zidane.cc.vt.edu (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.2-CR) with ESMTP id AYY52356 (AUTH talin); Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:30:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002501c2c3b4$d5f30b80$643f640a@tom> From: "Tao Lin" To: , References: Subject: Re: [manet] ad hoc network application for demo Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:28:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A video conference software vic will be helpful. Seach VIC in www.rpmfind.net. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 4:37 AM Subject: [manet] ad hoc network application for demo > Hi: > > I am considering how to demonstrate my ad hoc network testbed. What application you are usually using in your testbed? > > Can you give me some advise about some interesting application? except for ping/ftp:) > > I am thinking to find out a P2P file sharing application. If you know such application which can be run in Linux, please tell me also. > > > Yours > Leping > > --------------------------------------------------- > Leping HUANG > Research Engineer > Nokia Research Center Tokyo > 2-13-5, Nagata-cho Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0014, Japan > Phone: +81-3-3592-3528 Fax: +81-3-3592-3555 > leping.huang@nokia.com > --------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jan 24 11:04:55 2003 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 LAA23404 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:04:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0OGNxq09796 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:23:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OGNxJ09793 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:23:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23395 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:04:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OG30J07955; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:03:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OG0RJ07807 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:00:27 -0500 Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22756 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:40:52 -0500 (EST) 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 KAA02141 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:44:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from SEXTANT.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SAVSMTP 3.0.1.45) with SMTP id M2003012410441902830 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:44:19 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20030124103626.022f8db0@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil> X-Sender: macker@pop.itd.nrl.navy.mil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:46:20 -0500 To: manet@ietf.org From: Joe Macker Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [manet] Strawman interim charter/milestone update 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , All: Given the rough consensus perceived from the last meeting and from mailing list feedback I believe we have agreement on the way forward (see Corson Dec 2 request for comment on this subject)..I have compiled new strawman text for an interim charter/milestone update. This will be discussed with the IESG the first week of February. Obviously this is only an interim charter until we formulate consensus on the problem statement and scope of further work. Please read the Atlanta meeting minutes if you are confused. -Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of Working Group: The purpose of this working group is to standardize IP routing protocol functionality suitable for wireless routing application within both static and dynamic topologies. The fundamental design issues are that the wireless link interfaces have some unique routing interface characteristics and that node topologies within a wireless routing region may experience increased dynamics, due to motion or other factors. In the past, this WG has focused on exploring a broad range of MANET problems, performance issues, and related candidate protocols. Under this revised charter, the WG will operate under a reduced scope by targeting the promotion of a number of core routing protocol specifications to EXPERIMENTAL RFC status (i.e., AODV, DSR, OLSR and TBRPF). Some maturity of understanding and implementation exists with each of these protocols, yet more operational experimentation experience is seen as desirable. Overall, these protocols provide a basic set of MANET capabilities covering both reactive and proactive design spaces. With this experimental protocol base established, the WG will move on to design and develop MANET common group engineered routing specification(s) and introduce these to the Internet Standards track. Lessons learned from existing proposals will provide useful design input, but the target for this effort is a common group engineering effort not a recompilation of an existing approaches. This working group will work closely with the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) groups on Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (RRG) for tracking and considering any mature developments from the related research community. Goals and Milestones: Done: Submit I-D of MANET Design Considerations Done: Produce Informational RFC on Manet Design Considerations Done: Submit I-D(s) of Proposed Protocols Done: Explore basic performance and implementation issues of various approaches Done: Promote implementations and testing of proposed I-D(s) Done: Update I-D(s) based upon initial design experiences JAN 2003: Submit AODV specification to IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC JAN 2003: Submit DSR specification to IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC MAR 2003: Submit OLSR specification to IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC MAR 2003: Submit TBRPF specification to IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC JUN 2003: Develop a further focused problem statement and address an approach for a common engineering work effort NOV 2003: Reevaluate the WG's potential based on the problem statement consensus Active Internet-Drafts (planned): Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) Topology Broadcast based on Reverse-Path Forwarding (TBRPF) Request For Comments: Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations (RFC 2501) _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 24 14:32:05 2003 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 OAA29865 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:32:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0OJpCt24169 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:51:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OJpCJ24166 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:51:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29835 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:31:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OJZQJ22788; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:35:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0OJXfJ22725 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:33:41 -0500 Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29170 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:14:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com ([192.42.227.216]) by blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id LAA13219; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:17:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from stl-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/MBS-AV-02) with ESMTP id LAA11755; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:17:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com (xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com [128.225.22.4]) by stl-hub-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id h0OJHIe17673; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:17:19 -0600 (CST) Received: by xch-phl-02p.ne.nos.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:17:18 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: "'Martin Layley'" , manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:17:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0OJXgJ22726 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Martin, This might be somewhat overly legalistic, but what you describe is not QoS. You are referring to Real Time Protocol (RTP), and its associated RT Control Protocol (RTCP). It works to provide audio without any QoS guarantees. It attempts to adjust the compression algorithm as a function of delivered performance, readjusting continuously in real time if need be, and is expressly designed to provide streaming service WITHOUT any QoS mechanisms. I agree that RTP would be a way to tackle audio over a MANET. Precisely because QoS guarantees are unnecessary. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Layley [mailto:mlayley@seri.co.uk] > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:28 AM > To: manet@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > > > If you are looking to carry audio or video in real time, the > QoS can provide feedback to the compression system:- the > better the QoS, the greater the minimum bandwidth available > for data and the shorter the data transit time, due to fewer > re-tries. As the QoS diminishes, an adaptive coding scheme > at application level can increase its compression rate > accordingly. If there is no communication about QoS from > link-layer or network layers to application, the QoS within a > layer is still helpful, as if a system tries to maintain or > improve QoS, then the application sees fewer dropouts. > > Martin Layley > Samsung - SERI > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot [mailto:pablo@it.uc3m.es] > Sent: 23 January 2003 19:21 > To: manet@ietf.org > Subject: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > > > Hi all, > > I fully agree with 'SWAN philosophy', in the sense that > only a practical approach is feasible in ad hoc networks > (via a simple service differentiation). > > However, for me there is still an unanswered question, > of "certain importance": When is needed QoS in ad hoc > networks? I think ad hoc networks are created towards > one concrete purpose, therefore all traffic might be > considered of the same importance. > > I don't think ad hoc networks are going to be used as > "multipurpose networks", where service differentiation > is a must, at least during X months/years. > > Does anybody have an actual application where there is > a true need for QoS? > > "Its still early days for this topic I suspect", > Andrew stated. I also agree here. > > Cheers, > > Pbl > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > The mail message has been scanned by MAILsweeper > for content analysis. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jan 24 23:44:02 2003 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 XAA10123 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:44:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0P53Mm22173 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 00:03:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0P53LJ22170 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 00:03:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10116 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:43:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0P4YRJ20359; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:34:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0P4VjJ20293 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:31:45 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09628 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:11:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 18cHj0-0004BE-00 for manet@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:15:22 -0800 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:14:49 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <13476397964.20030124201449@psg.com> To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Next steps for the WG 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MANET WG members, Some time ago we started the dialog about the future of the WG that resulted in the proposed strategy that I outlined in my message to the WG list on November 1, 2002 (included after this message), one-on-one conversations that Scott, Joe, and myself had with some of you guys, as well as an open discussion in Atlanta. This all gave us an opportunity to collect input from the community and gauge the consensus on the proposal. Based on the feedback I got, I believe that we DO have consensus that this is the right way to move forward. As part of the reformation process you should expect the discussion on the new WG charter prepared by the WG chairs and reviewed by the ADs, and scoping the list of the WG documents to those that the WG will continue working on. Regards, -- Alex Zinin From: Alex Zinin To: manet@ietf.org Cc: Vern Paxson , Bill Fenner Date: Friday, November 01, 2002, 5:23:11 PM Subject: IMPORTANT: MANET WG Strategy ===8<==============Original message text=============== Folks- [AD hat on] For a long while the MANET WG has been struggling through a number of problems. After analyzing the situation, it appears that the main reason behind this is the fact that the WG was created and has been operating as a research type of group, producing multiple possible solutions for a very wide set of similar problems. At the time of creation, IETF was the only reasonable home for this sort of work, mainly because the IRTF was largely dysfunctional. However, the research nature of the WG did not work well in the IETF environment, where we would normally like members of the WGs to focus on a relatively narrow, well defined problem, and work closely together on the solution(s). This situation obviously needs to be resolved if we want the MANET WG to produce IETF standards track specification(s) for mobile ad hoc networks. After talking to the WG chairs and some people within the WG (I definitely couldn't have talked to all of you guys), I believe that the following plan should be executed to solve the problem. Goals: 1. Convert the WG to operate in the engineering (IETF) mode and produce the IETF standard specification(s) for MANETs. This requires: o clear and focused problem statement o focused WG charter with clear milestones o WG members working closely together towards consensus 2. For the work that will benefit from further research work, and would be affected by focusing the WG charter, if possible find a better home that will match the research nature of the work. Given that the IRTF has been brought back to real life and there's actually useful work happening within it, the IRTF would be the logical choice for this. Steps: 1. A new Research Group (or a sub-group of the Routing RG) is created within the IRTF. The group will be the home for MANET research work. Since a longer, more research-oriented work is needed for extended salability mechanisms that LANMAR, FSR, ZRP, and TORA are attempting to provide, these protocols are relocated from the MANET WG to the IRTF, where they will benefit the research environment without the pressure of having to converge on a single protocol. As work in the IRTF matures, creation of IETF WGs maybe explored through the regular IETF BOF or WG rechartering procedures. /* The WG chairs are currently working with the IRTF chair * (I'm cc'ing Vern) on creating a forum for MANET research * work. */ 2. The charter of the MANET WG is changed to complete the work on four protocols--DSR, AODV, OLSR, and TBRPF--and submit them for publication as Experimental to the IESG. 3. When done with the Experimental documents, the WG transitions to the engineering mode with the first step of documenting the engineering problem statement describing the applicability aspects of the protocol to be designed, such as the type of ad hoc networks that need to be supported, number of nodes, level of mobility, etc. The scope of the problem is expected to be much narrower than the implicit problem statement that the current research activity is trying to cover. This step is required for the WG to continue its existence; the WG's potential will be reevaluated based on the produced problem statement and the charter will be updated accordingly. 4. If consensus on the problem statement is reached, the WG (including the members of the current subgroups) will work together on the design of the IETF protocol(s) (either a single one with proactive and reactive modes, or one proactive, one reactive, for example; depending on what the WG decides is required) for ad hoc networks that will be progressed along the IETF standards tracks. Note that this protocol(s) will not be a recompilation of one of the four experimental protocols, but will be a true product of the engineering discussion within the WG, potentially incorporating features from all of them. Also note, that it will be an explicit non-goal for this IETF WG to choose and use the latest and greatest techniques that are currently being worked on or explored in the research community. Instead, the protocol(s) should be based on the mechanisms that the engineering community is most comfortable and has had sufficient experience with. Research work will continue happening in the IRTF. I had an opportunity to discuss this proposal with some of the WG members and the chairs and got considerable support. I am sending this message to understand the feeling of the wider WG community about the proposed strategy. I would also like us to discuss this in Atlanta before the decision is finalized. Scott, Joe, please allocate a time slot for this. Thank you. Alex ===8<===========End of original message text=========== _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 25 02:46:01 2003 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 CAA21486 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:46:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0P85N707914 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 03:05:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0P85NJ07911 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 03:05:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21483 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:45:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0P7deJ07295; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:39:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0P6aLJ26110 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:36:21 -0500 Received: from mailoff.mtu.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11039 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:13:18 -0500 (EST) From: rbandaru@mtu.edu Received: from node21. (node21.mtu.edu [141.219.68.121]) by mailoff.mtu.edu (8.12.5/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h0P6G55w011985 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:16:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from node25 (node25.mtu.edu [141.219.68.125]) by node21. (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0P6G5m18098 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:16:05 -0500 Received: from node5. (node5.mtu.edu [141.219.68.105]) by mail.mtu.edu (8.11.4/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0P6G1d17373 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from node5 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by node5. (8.11.6/8.11.1/mturelay-2.0b) with ESMTP id h0P7Cmp14517 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:12:48 -0500 Message-Id: <200301250712.h0P7Cmp14517@node5.> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary To: manet@ietf.org Organization: Michigan Technological University X-Originating-Ip: 141.219.21.91 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: rbandaru@mtu.edu Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 3:12:47 EDT X-Mailer: EMUmail 4.0 X-Webmail-User: rbandaru@email.mtu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Subject: [manet] Attacks on mobile ad hoc networks 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Hi, Can any one help me to find the vulnerabilities of ad hoc networks? I was able to figure out attacks that can occur due to selfishness of nodes, or attacks due to compromised nodes or attacks related to physical layer like signal jamming and somethings like that. I will be very thankful if any one can help me in finding attacks related to transport layer or data link layer, or any other attacks related to network or physical layers. Thank You. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 25 16:08:07 2003 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 QAA28334 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:08:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0PLRkh09865 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:27:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0PLRjJ09862 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:27:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28330 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:07:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0PLFrJ09597; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:15:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0PKkIJ08419 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 15:46:18 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28045 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 15:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0PKT6JH004942 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:29:06 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:29:16 -0400 From: zhen To: manet@ietf.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Message-ID: <3E3439FD@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Questions regarding misbehavior detection 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, there, I am wondering how you think about following questions regarding the well-known paper "Mitigating Routing Misbehavior in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks". The idea of in the paper mentioned above is very interesting but I have following questions to ask. Does the idea apply to the stage of data transmission or the one of finding routes? (In the paper, it does not specify the attacks that this approach can solve). I suppose it applies to the first one because only so you have the list of nodes needed by monitoring procedure. How do you feel the limitation of it"does not work well in multi-rate wireless networks because nodes might not hear their neighbors forwarding communications due to different modulation"(An On-Demand Secure Routing Protocol Resilient to Byzantine Failures). But I suppose if nodes can communicate, they should be in same modulation model. Is this the right case? Also I heard that this method(I mean, misbehavior detection) can not detect all misbehaviors. Any thought? thanks for your help new to this Zhen Zhen Graduate CS Dalhousie University _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 26 02:18:41 2003 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 CAA14474 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 02:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0Q7cW315556 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 02:38:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0Q7cWJ15553 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 02:38:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14465 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 02:18:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0Q7HIJ13517; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 02:17:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0Q6rkJ02502 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:53:46 -0500 Received: from rediffmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id BAA04179 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:33:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21044 invoked by uid 510); 26 Jan 2003 06:43:58 -0000 Date: 26 Jan 2003 06:43:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20030126064358.21043.qmail@webmail26.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (219.65.236.149) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 26 jan 2003 06:43:58 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Varnit Suri" Reply-To: "Varnit Suri" To: manet@ietf.org Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [manet] fuzzy based routing algorithms 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello everyone I am currently working on routing protocols in MANETs. Does anyone know of any fuzzy based routing algorithms in MANETs ? I would be grateful if someone could point out some links to me. Kind Regards Varnit Suri Bachelor of Technology (Senior Year) Electronics & Communication Engineering Faculty of Engineering & Technology JMI New Delhi India _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 26 20:26:11 2003 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 UAA24396 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:26:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0R1kOb03889 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:46:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0R1kNJ03886 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:46:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24385 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:25:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0R1ZqJ02851; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:35:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0R1GJJ02486 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:16:19 -0500 Received: from web20510.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA24110 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:55:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030127005904.97404.qmail@web20510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [202.184.37.7] by web20510.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:59:04 PST Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:59:04 -0800 (PST) From: Shaiful To: manet@ietf.org Cc: varnitsuri@rediffmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [manet] fuzzy based manet routing protocol 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, There is a paper about ad hoc routing using fuzzy, presented at International Conference on Network, Singapore, 2002. Conference proceedings 0-7803-7533-5 A fuzzy-decision-based routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. by Y.F.Wong W.C.Wong Good luck, Regards, Shaiful varnitsur wrote: Hello everyone I am currently working on routing protocols in MANETs. Does anyone know of any fuzzy based routing algorithms in MANETs? I would be grateful if someone could point out some links to me. Kind Regards Varnit Suri Bachelor of Technology (Senior Year) Electronics & Communication Engineering Faculty of Engineering & Technology JMI New Delhi India __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 27 04:05:47 2003 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 EAA10303 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:05:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0R9Q9A05635 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:26:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0R9Q8J05632 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:26:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10295 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:05:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0R9BDJ04808; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:11:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0R8tCJ03292 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 03:55:12 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA09758 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 03:34:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:37:49 -0800 Received: from 163.121.64.182 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:37:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [163.121.64.182] From: "reham elmayet" To: manet@ietf.org Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:37:48 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2003 08:37:49.0263 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FA20DF0:01C2C5DF] 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: ,



Hello,
I'm working in "manet" routing protocols, but i want to know why we need manet? what's the coverage range of it? because when I asked some of proffessors about manet they tolled me that it is a weak network and there is no need to make a research in this topic and also yhe price of the access point became cheap, so there is no need to use manet.So, please tolled me if it's a hot topic or not and why?
also when you send me the quesions of other members i want to know the answers of their quesions.thank you.
with my regardes,
reham 

Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 27 05:05:01 2003 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 FAA11242 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:05:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0RAPP709789 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:25:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RAPPJ09786 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:25:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11236 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:04:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RAFqJ09191; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:15:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RA5eJ08133 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:05:40 -0500 Received: from web40809.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA10872 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:44:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030127094815.99087.qmail@web40809.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [165.21.83.198] by web40809.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 01:48:15 PST Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 01:48:15 -0800 (PST) From: Alvin Valera To: reh_elmayet@hotmail.com, manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Reham, I'm not sure what you meant by "weak networks". Anyway, here is one good reason why research in ad hoc networks would be useful and beneficial even if access points were very cheap: Ad hoc networks are not intended to compete or replace infrastructure networks. In fact, emerging applications make use ad hoc networks to extend or "enhance" the coverage of infrastructure nets. Also, even if access points were cheap, there would be situations were setting up access points would be a waste of time and money. For example, a battlefield network were the "nodes" are moving towards some targets. Where would I put those access points? Another issue is that the enemy could easily cripple my network by bombing my access points... I'm sure there are more reasons for doing research in manets. >>> "reham elmayet" 01/27/03 17:05 PM >>> __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 27 08:37:35 2003 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 IAA15588 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:37:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0RDw2s22442 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:58:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RDw2J22436 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:58:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15560 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:37:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RDnGJ21789; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:49:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RDgsJ21577 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:42:54 -0500 Received: from smtp.uc3m.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15182 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:21:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E3154320E; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:25:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from itserv2.lab.it.uc3m.es (itserv2.lab.it.uc3m.es [163.117.144.121]) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2158F99EA3; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:25:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from varpa.it.uc3m.es (pablo@varpa.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.253]) by itserv2.lab.it.uc3m.es (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA19717; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:31:23 +0100 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:31:30 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pablo_Serrano_Y=E1=F1ez-Mingot?= Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pablo_Serrano_Y=E1=F1ez-Mingot?= To: Rex Buddenberg Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? In-Reply-To: <1043365599.7752.76.camel@ziggy> Message-ID: 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 www1.ietf.org id h0RDgsJ21578 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Rex, First, thanks for your reply, but I have some brand new comments! I don't care for the military scenario (I mean: not from a technical point of view :) But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be considered an 'overlay network', and not a true mobile ad hoc network. I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network should be deployed (I think). You won't have a previously installed services, because there won't be what I called 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. All traffic on the network will be the same (from my point of view) in terms of priorities. Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) And that's all, by the way. Cheers, Pbl On 23 Jan 2003, Rex Buddenberg wrote: > Pablo, > > The military scenarios for MANET are ones where some QoS control is > needed. There is lots of traffic -- expect it to exceed the capacity > available forever. And some traffic is more urgent than other. So some > means of priority queueing and probably some admittance control is going > to be required. > > But .... > > We have empirical evidence even in the wired Internet that most QoS > control scheme cures are worse than the disease. The stateful > orientation of RSVP is an obvious one, but even diff-serv showed up a > lot of warts. But the IETF diff-serv exercise has to be leavened with > at least two comments: > - MANET is expressly designed to handle topology volatility. That > volatility is guaranteed to make any QoS control scheme harder than in a > comparatively stable wired internet. > - the military MANET scenario is one where the standard ISP trick of > overprovisioning isn't readily available. > > > If you don't care for the military scenario -- an army division on the > move -- then an emergency services one might fit just as well. Consider > the emergency response and comms needs for a large fire (e.g. forest > fire) or a chem/bio attack on a civilian population and the > applicability of MANET capability as a need pops right out. > > On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 11:20, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I fully agree with 'SWAN philosophy', in the sense that > > only a practical approach is feasible in ad hoc networks > > (via a simple service differentiation). > > > > However, for me there is still an unanswered question, > > of "certain importance": When is needed QoS in ad hoc > > networks? I think ad hoc networks are created towards > > one concrete purpose, therefore all traffic might be > > considered of the same importance. > > > > I don't think ad hoc networks are going to be used as > > "multipurpose networks", where service differentiation > > is a must, at least during X months/years. > > > > Does anybody have an actual application where there is > > a true need for QoS? > > > > "Its still early days for this topic I suspect", > > Andrew stated. I also agree here. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Pbl > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Mon Jan 27 11:07:26 2003 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 LAA18354 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:07:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0RGRvH31708 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:27:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RGRvJ31705 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:27:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18342 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:06:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RG6LJ30149; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:06:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RFxuJ29900 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:59:56 -0500 Received: from msweeper.seri.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17827 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:38:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.seri.co.uk (ex1.seri.co.uk) by msweeper.seri.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:36:37 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:41:59 -0000 Message-ID: <341710540F08E34498A057DEE04DAAD75AAC70@ex1.seri.co.uk> Thread-Topic: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? Thread-Index: AcLGEsWB4wDQOiyiStSQ+JFS0vtthwAA3zeA From: "Martin Layley" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0RFxuJ29901 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit How about data communication at temporary venues? I'm thinking of showgrounds/county fairs, where there is minimal need for infrastructure for most of the year, and huge need for 1 day/weekend/week. The sorts of applications requiring a reasonable guarantee of data are pay kiosks, information booths and information display screens:- Display screens need data for timetabling & messages (lost child etc) within a few minutes, information booths need an acceptable response time - long delays in responding == increase in vandalism as people get bored waiting. The overriding requirement is the commercial traffic, to cut down on ticket queues. This can be quite bursty in nature & must be carried swiftly & securely. Martin Samsung - SERI -----Original Message----- From: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot [mailto:pablo@it.uc3m.es] Sent: 25 January 2003 15:32 To: Rex Buddenberg Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? Hi Rex, First, thanks for your reply, but I have some brand new comments! I don't care for the military scenario (I mean: not from a technical point of view :) But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be considered an 'overlay network', and not a true mobile ad hoc network. I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network should be deployed (I think). You won't have a previously installed services, because there won't be what I called 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. All traffic on the network will be the same (from my point of view) in terms of priorities. Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) And that's all, by the way. Cheers, Pbl On 23 Jan 2003, Rex Buddenberg wrote: > Pablo, > > The military scenarios for MANET are ones where some QoS control is > needed. There is lots of traffic -- expect it to exceed the capacity > available forever. And some traffic is more urgent than other. So some > means of priority queueing and probably some admittance control is going > to be required. > > But .... > > We have empirical evidence even in the wired Internet that most QoS > control scheme cures are worse than the disease. The stateful > orientation of RSVP is an obvious one, but even diff-serv showed up a > lot of warts. But the IETF diff-serv exercise has to be leavened with > at least two comments: > - MANET is expressly designed to handle topology volatility. That > volatility is guaranteed to make any QoS control scheme harder than in a > comparatively stable wired internet. > - the military MANET scenario is one where the standard ISP trick of > overprovisioning isn't readily available. > > > If you don't care for the military scenario -- an army division on the > move -- then an emergency services one might fit just as well. Consider > the emergency response and comms needs for a large fire (e.g. forest > fire) or a chem/bio attack on a civilian population and the > applicability of MANET capability as a need pops right out. > > On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 11:20, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I fully agree with 'SWAN philosophy', in the sense that > > only a practical approach is feasible in ad hoc networks > > (via a simple service differentiation). > > > > However, for me there is still an unanswered question, > > of "certain importance": When is needed QoS in ad hoc > > networks? I think ad hoc networks are created towards > > one concrete purpose, therefore all traffic might be > > considered of the same importance. > > > > I don't think ad hoc networks are going to be used as > > "multipurpose networks", where service differentiation > > is a must, at least during X months/years. > > > > Does anybody have an actual application where there is > > a true need for QoS? > > > > "Its still early days for this topic I suspect", > > Andrew stated. I also agree here. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Pbl > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 The mail message has been scanned by MAILsweeper for content analysis. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 27 12:47:48 2003 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 MAA20564 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0RI8Le05825 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:08:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RI8LJ05822 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:08:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20548 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RHvxJ04824; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:57:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RHstJ04683 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:54:55 -0500 Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20354 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:33:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com ([192.42.227.216]) by slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id JAA06139; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:37:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from blv-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/MBS-AV-02) with ESMTP id JAA16362; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-01.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-01.nw.nos.boeing.com [192.33.62.231]) by blv-hub-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id h0RHbH607699; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:37:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NW-09.nw.nos.boeing.com ([192.42.226.84]) by XCH-NWBH-01.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:36:33 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6334.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks-security problem Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:36:33 -0800 Message-ID: <5B58696DB20B9140AD20E0685C573A64190843@XCH-NW-09.nw.nos.boeing.com> Thread-Topic: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks-security problem Thread-Index: AcLDPOPgmZZyvNqgSGimlQoo+TfQ+AC7Q9wQ From: "Fleischman, Eric" To: "Bin Lu" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2003 17:36:33.0629 (UTC) FILETIME=[A274E0D0:01C2C62A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0RHstJ04684 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The distinction between edge, border and core routers is difficult to maintain within many MANET networks (at least in the subset I have been considering) because the node's role varies as a function of the current topology. -----Original Message----- From: Bin Lu [mailto:b0l4549@cs.tamu.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:37 PM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks-security problem I know "security" problem is not a consideration when designing a QoS model, but probably because my interest is security, I can't help thinking about it when looking at QoS architectures. In stateless models, once the packets are differentiated by the classifier residing at border hosts, the intermediate nodes don't keep per-flow information and therefore don't have any control over the admission. The intermediate nodes roughly just forward it according to the service levels marked by the border hosts. But the problem is, what if a selfish, greedy or malicious node who cooperates with the classifier node steals the services? Or the classifier mismarks the packets? It is easy because in some models (such as FQMM) the source node even classify the packets by itself. The intermediate nodes can't do flow admissions and therefore won't be able to detect any intrusions. It is different in stateful QoS models. Since the intermediate nodes still keep the per-flow information, they can check or perform admission control. Is there any solution for this problem in stateless models, or is there any existing technique that can help solve the problem? Any hint will help. Thanks in advance! Bin On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Andrew T. Campbell wrote: > > Hello John and Carlos: > > We looked at both stateful and > (INSIGNIA http://comet.columbia.edu/insignia/ > stateless (SWAN http://comet.columbia.edu/swan/) > approaches to MANET-QOS. There are papers > and code there. > > There are various tradeoffs to consider > but I now feel that the solution space > is more likely to be dominated by > stateless solutions (SWAN is one) because > they are less complex to implement and better suited > to cope with mobility. > > I'm sure there are a number of interesting > solutions that lie between these stateful and stateless > approaches. I do not think RSVP in a MANET is a > good idea BTW. > > IDs for our work: > > INSIGNIA: > > http://www.comet.columbia.edu/insignia/draft-ietf-manet-insignia-01.txt > > > SWAN: > > http://comet.columbia.edu/swan/draft-ahn-swan-manet-00.txt > > QOS has never really been on the radar screen for the WG > but maybe a good scope item for the new IRTF MANET initiative. > > Its still early days for this topic I suspect. > > --- > Andrew > http://comet.columbia.edu/~campbell > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > John Tapsell > > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:29 PM > > To: Carlos García > > Cc: manet@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks > > > > > > Disclaimer: I know nothing. My knowledge is incomplete and > > ba and you > > shouldn't trust it at all. > > > > I had a look at this, and had a quite few problems trying to > > set up such a > > network. Basically what I managed to learn was: > > * The idea has been around longer than I've been alive. > > * Hardly anyone seems to be working on it. > > * RSVP was played about with a lot, but died on adhoc's > > because it is > > trying to enforce stateful connections on a stateless network. > > * You need to have a very clear idea of what properties > > your network has. > > How much everything moves about, whether there are groupings, > > whether there > > are fixed points, etc. > > * If things are going to be moving about, then the QoS is > > basically doomed > > :) So switch your focus on looking whether best-effort is > > good enough. > > * Implementations of various QoS systems for linux are in a > > bad state. An > > implementation of dRSVP that I tried to set up had bugs that > > the author was > > still trying to fix. ( I found that out _after_ spending > > ages trying to find > > out what was wrong). I did manage to get another > > implementation of dRSVP > > working tho. Although this was through a lot of sweat and > > blood - mostly due > > to my ignorance in this area. I still don't really get the > > whole class based > > queueing system. > > * If you want to study QoS, make sure you study and > > understand routing on > > adhocs first. > > * It seems to me, in my very humble opinion, that there > > isn't likely to be a > > 'wonder' protocol that works on any network, but rather you > > need to evaluate > > the network closely and see what fits best. > > > > Take what I've said with a pinch of salt, but I hope I can > > help in some small > > way. > > > > JohnFlux > > > > On Thursday 23 January 2003 3:35 pm, Carlos García wrote: > > > Hi everybody, > > > > > > I am very interesting in the support of QoS on adhoc networks. > > > > > > I will be very pleased if someone could help me finding > > papers or proyects > > > related to this subject. > > > > > > Thank you very much, > > > Carlos García > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Mon Jan 27 12:47:48 2003 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 MAA20573 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0RI8M905841 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:08:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RI8MJ05838 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:08:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20551 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:47:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RHvEJ04765; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:57:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RHsEJ04672 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:54:14 -0500 Received: from che.onthejob.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20345 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:33:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from che.onthejob.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by che.onthejob.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h0RHad3C029223 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:36:39 -0600 Received: (from dyoung@localhost) by che.onthejob.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h0RHactq029221 for manet@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:36:38 -0600 Resent-Message-Id: <200301271736.h0RHactq029221@che.onthejob.net> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:44:26 -0600 From: David Young To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? Message-ID: <20030123214426.GC11059@che.onthejob.net> Mail-Followup-To: manet@ietf.org References: <00c901c2c30a$7b2f9380$ca413b80@SWEETPEA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Resent-From: dyoung@pobox.com Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:36:38 -0600 Resent-To: manet@ietf.org 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 08:20:43PM +0100, Pablo Serrano Y??ez-Mingot wrote: > Does anybody have an actual application where there is > a true need for QoS? Yes. Let's posit a "neighborhood area network" (NAN) connecting homes in a 25 city block region with a multihop radio network. It is desirable for it to be built on a grassroots basis. Moreover, it is *possible* for it to be built on a grassroots basis if certain technical conditions are met. I can think of two technical conditions off the top of my head: 1) Nodes on the network can be installed as or more easily than television aerials, and 2) the network is self-organizing. Cleary a self-organizing multihop network such as a NAN needs an ad hoc routing protocol. What are its uses that it requires QoS, though? Media activists would like for a NAN to carry radio and video streams containing local programming. Consumers will benefit from IP telephony on the NAN: there will be no per-call or per-minute fees, and all the "extras" the local telco sells them (voicemail, call-waiting, call-forwarding) can be provided by their home PC. Both of these applications benefit from QoS. Dave > > Hi all, > > I fully agree with 'SWAN philosophy', in the sense that > only a practical approach is feasible in ad hoc networks > (via a simple service differentiation). > > However, for me there is still an unanswered question, > of "certain importance": When is needed QoS in ad hoc > networks? I think ad hoc networks are created towards > one concrete purpose, therefore all traffic might be > considered of the same importance. > > I don't think ad hoc networks are going to be used as > "multipurpose networks", where service differentiation > is a must, at least during X months/years. > > Does anybody have an actual application where there is > a true need for QoS? > > "Its still early days for this topic I suspect", > Andrew stated. I also agree here. > > Cheers, > > Pbl > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jan 27 13:00:03 2003 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 NAA21086 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0RIKbS06529 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:20:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RIKYJ06526 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:20:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21061 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:59:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RIAdJ05959; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:10:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RI90J05889 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:09:00 -0500 Received: from [140.32.132.66] (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20591 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:47:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.nps.navy.mil by [140.32.132.66] via smtpd (for [132.151.6.1]) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:44:43 -0800 Received: from ziggy ([131.120.179.220]) by capella.nps.navy.mil (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0RHiQvD018014; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:44:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? From: Rex Buddenberg To: Pablo Serrano =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Y=E1=F1ez-Mingot?= Cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 27 Jan 2003 09:35:11 -0800 Message-Id: <1043688915.7816.274.camel@ziggy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0RI90J05890 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 07:31, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a > 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be > considered an 'overlay network', and not a true > mobile ad hoc network. > Any real world scenario of any scale will be a mixture of infrastructure and MANET. I can't imagine a practical standalone MANET of any size. So yes, there will be a fixed infrastructure -- that the fire departments use on a daily basis and for both operational and non-operational traffic. In the event of a catastrophe (the large forest fire example) a couple things happen: - some fixed infrastructure is damaged - the existing fire department resources may need to extend connectivity into unplanned places so you have ad hoc buildout. - the local fire department is augmented with assets that surge into the area. A lot more ad hot (freudian sic... hoc) buildout. - as the fire progresses and assets move, the topology of the ad hoc part of the network will surely change. Similarly, the places where the ad hoc portions of the network connect to the fixed portions can be expected to change too. > I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network > should be deployed (I think). If you have any experience with either military or emergency services, you should have develope antibodies that say: 'the last thing you should do in the face of a crisis is reorganize'. The order of battle should be the same as the order of sailing (Nelson). You won't have a previously > installed services, because there won't be what I called > 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. All emergency services outfits I've ever dealt with have previously installed services that they use daily -- this is a Good Thing since the crew knows how the stuff works. All traffic on the > network will be the same (from my point of view) in > terms of priorities. Don't agree, but easy to go overboard. There will be urgent traffic and there will be not so urgent traffic. But sorting this into more than about 4 bins represents such a departure from KISS that you get in real trouble. One outfit I'm working with (government, of course) is looking at 64 levels of priority since they have 6 bits to work with ... aaack. These comments are to substantive traffic (I need the next water drop over here). They are not directed at the network convergence traffic, which may indeed be single priority. > > Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable > authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes > are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision > an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) Take a look at the IETF diff-serv exercise that ended last year. The hard lessons learned there: - the QoS control cures may be worse than the disease - departure from KISS has severe consequences. Note that the need for authentication assumes the need for QoS control. - attempts to diddle with the DS byte open DoS attack vectors. Second, take a look at the IEPREP working group in IETF. Lotsa cruft in the archive, but the basics are 1) overprovision the fixed network and pre-empt the QoS control problem there. 2) Yes, if you're going to provide _any_ kind of premium service, you're going to need an authentication system to prevent abuse (by both insiders and outsiders). > > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 27 20:53:33 2003 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 UAA02809 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:53:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0S2EIH02454 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:14:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0S2EHJ02451 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:14:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02802 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:53:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0S1nAJ00813; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:49:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0S1c8J00498 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:38:08 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02219 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:16:53 -0500 (EST) From: Leping.Huang@nokia.com Received: from esvir03nok.nokia.com (esvir03nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.35]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.1/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0S1Mog20868 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 03:22:51 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir03nok.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 03:20:23 +0200 Received: from esebe002.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.17]) by esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6139); Tue, 28 Jan 2003 03:20:23 +0200 Received: from toebe001.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.24.109.35]) by esebe002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6139); Tue, 28 Jan 2003 03:20:22 +0200 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:20:18 +0900 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: result: ad hoc network application for demo Thread-Index: AcLGa2r96EhVXIhtShyfE7MFxu6/aA== To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2003 01:20:22.0744 (UTC) FILETIME=[6DE6D580:01C2C66B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] result: ad hoc network application for demo 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Thank you for your kind reply about how to demonstrate some interesting application in manet.->Pete, Andreas, Carlos, Naveen and Tao. I post the mail I received about demo application to this mailing list to share our experience. Yours Leping Pete Sholander: mobiemu at sourceforge may be useful. ntttp or mgen are interesting traffic generators, just for test-purposes. Video makes the flashiest demo ... Andreas Yankopolus: ttcp and nttcp are good for bandwidth measurements Try GnomeMeeting for VoIP and video conferencing RealPlayer and Darwin Streaming Server (Apple) both run on Linux and will stream multimedia content LimeWire/Gnutella are good P2P file sharing applications with very little reliance on a server (the server bootstraps the clients) Carlos Garcia: we have done some demonstrations with VideoLAN. It is a powerfull and very visual application for streaming video in network. It support several kinds of codecs, including mpeg and DivX. And i think it is GNU License :) Of course you have typical audio/video applications such as vic and rat. Naveen Kumar Lall: I think you can use Network Simulator [NS]. Please see if it helps. It is available on the site... http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/ Tao Lin A video conference software vic will be helpful. Seach VIC in www.rpmfind.net. --------------------------------------------------- Leping HUANG Research Engineer Nokia Research Center Tokyo 2-13-5, Nagata-cho Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0014, Japan Phone: +81-3-3592-3528 Fax: +81-3-3592-3555 leping.huang@nokia.com --------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 00:08:56 2003 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 AAA05976 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0S5TiC12002 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:29:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0S5ThJ11999 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:29:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05963 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:08:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0S5COJ11436; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:12:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0S58dJ11364 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:08:39 -0500 Received: from primary.vmtllc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05626 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:47:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury (h-64-105-46-83.MCLNVA23.covad.net [64.105.46.83]) by primary.vmtllc.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0S4duf27838; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:39:56 -0500 From: "David Holmer" To: "'zhen'" , Subject: RE: [manet] Questions regarding misbehavior detection Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:50:32 -0500 Organization: Johns Hopkins University Message-ID: <001301c2c688$ca891ab0$5188fea9@mercury> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-reply-to: <3E3439FD@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Zhen, Obviously we took a close look at "Mitigating Routing Misbehavior in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", by Sergio Marti, T.J. Giuli, Kevin Lai, and Mary Baker at Stanford, while we were writing "An On-Demand Secure Routing Protocol Resilient to Byzantine Failures". So I figured I'd share my opinions in an effort to answer your question. > I am wondering how you think about following questions regarding the > well-known paper "Mitigating Routing Misbehavior in Mobile Ad Hoc > Networks". The idea of in the paper mentioned above is very interesting > but I have following questions to ask. First, I agree that the central idea of this paper is very interesting, and I applaud the clever exploitation of a unique property of wireless networks to serve a useful function. Also, I agree with the fundamental approach of misbehavior detection and avoidance (which was also used as the basis of our protocol). I believe this is the central issue related to your confusion: > (In the paper, it does not specify the attacks that this > approach can solve). While they don't provide a formal security model, in the introduction the authors state that "a node may misbehave by agreeing to forward packets and then failing to do so, because it is overloaded, selfish, malicious, or broken." There is also another paragraph in the introduction that talks about the down sides of "a priori trust-based forwarding". This implies that the presented protocol does not require such a trust relationship (and none is described in the protocol sections). My best guess at the security model is: - All nodes may participate in the network (no keys or certificates are required) - All nodes participate correctly protocol, except that - Some nodes may misbehave by dropping packets they have agreed to forward Notice that I've limited the misbehavior of the nodes to dropping packets ONLY. This protocol does not protect against the myriad of attacks possible if even a single malicious node is allowed to fabricate and modify packets. The lack of authentication using a trust relationship in this protocol means that a single malicious node has even greater power than a single Byzantine node. This is because the single malicious node can use an unlimited number of fictitious identities, allowing it to perform many of the attacks that multiple Byzantine adversaries can. Just for example, a single malicious node can easily escape detection by watchdog by appending a fictitious node id after its own on the route request during the route discovery flood. Now the node can safely drop any packets by "sending" them to the fictitious next hop. This is the same attack that two collaborating nodes can mount, but executed by a single malicious node. Now if you think carefully about this particular example, you can probably come up with ways to defend against this attack: by implicating nodes that append two ids during the flood, by having the next real hop notice that it has received a packet out of sequence from someone further back on the source route, or by some other means. But any solution requires modifications to the proposed protocol. In the end this protocol is inherently flawed when dealing with unrestricted malicious nodes, because even if they are successfully detected, they can simply change identities and avoid the blame (not to mention the near limitless abuse made possible by the ability to implicate other nodes). So given the above security model, the question is which types of nodes still fit? Since malicious nodes aren't likely to restrict themselves to only dropping packets and operating correctly otherwise, we are left with overloaded, selfish, or broken nodes. Upon closer inspection, the best option available for selfish nodes is to simply not forward route requests. This is in their best interest because forwarding requests takes CPU and battery, and as a side effect, no one will ever select a route through them. So, in conclusion, according to the given security model, the proposed protocol is only useful for protecting against nodes that are either overloaded or broken. Even though the proposed protocol does not provide much useful protection, it is possible that an alternate protocol could use the same technique of promiscuous listening to provide greater security guarantees, which brings us to your other question: > How do you feel the limitation of it"does not work well in multi-rate > wireless networks because nodes might not hear their neighbors forwarding > communications due to different modulation"(An On-Demand Secure Routing > Protocol Resilient to Byzantine Failures). But I suppose if nodes can > communicate, they should be in same modulation model. Is this the right > case? Since the protocol we propose in that paper is quite complex and space was limited, some details got squeezed to the point of being cryptic. The authors of the mitigating paper already point out a few "normal" situations where a correctly forwarded packet may not be overheard (various types of collisions and transmission power control). Since we use 802.11b devices as a test platform, we used that as our standard of evaluation. The power control issue doesn't affect current 802.11b network as the transmission power is fixed. We also decided that the RTS CTS virtual carrier sense mechanism of 802.11 should help mitigate the number of these collisions (at least for a single stream of packets traveling along a path). But we also noticed another reason why the forwarded packet might not be overheard. If node A is far away from node B and node C is relatively close to node B, then A will likely not be able to overhear the transmission from B to C when a multi-rate protocol like 802.11b is used. If the transmission from A to B must take place at 1 Mbps because of the high path loss, it will not be able to decode an 11 Mpbs transmission from B to C because the BER will be extremely high. This is very similar to the power control case the authors already mentioned. However, unlike the other two cases the authors mentioned, this case is much more likely to cause problems then the other two, because it actually happens in real world networks. A simulation would be necessary to get an approximate number for the overall impact. Well, this response got much longer than I originally intended, but I hope it help you out. I'd be happy to hear other people's opinions on the subject as well. David Holmer, Johns Hopkins University For those that are interested: An On-Demand Secure Routing Protocol Resilient to Byzantine Failures Baruch Awerbuch, David Holmer, Cristina Nita-Rotaru, Herbert Rubens ACM Workshop on Wireless Security (WiSe) 2002 http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/awerbuch02demand.html -----Original Message----- From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of zhen Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 3:29 PM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Questions regarding misbehavior detection Hello, there, I am wondering how you think about following questions regarding the well-known paper "Mitigating Routing Misbehavior in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks". The idea of in the paper mentioned above is very interesting but I have following questions to ask. Does the idea apply to the stage of data transmission or the one of finding routes? (In the paper, it does not specify the attacks that this approach can solve). I suppose it applies to the first one because only so you have the list of nodes needed by monitoring procedure. How do you feel the limitation of it"does not work well in multi-rate wireless networks because nodes might not hear their neighbors forwarding communications due to different modulation"(An On-Demand Secure Routing Protocol Resilient to Byzantine Failures). But I suppose if nodes can communicate, they should be in same modulation model. Is this the right case? Also I heard that this method(I mean, misbehavior detection) can not detect all misbehaviors. Any thought? thanks for your help new to this Zhen Zhen Graduate CS Dalhousie 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 mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 00:19:54 2003 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 AAA06168 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:19:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0S5eg813151 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:40:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0S5egJ13148 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:40:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA06164 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:19:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0S5JAJ11638; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:19:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0S5IBJ11600 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:18:11 -0500 Received: from mail.iitk.ac.in (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05718; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:56:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from antivirus.cc.iitk.ac.in (antivirus [172.31.1.102]) by mail.iitk.ac.in (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10776; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:32:06 +0530 (IST) Received: from mailhost.cse.iitk.ac.in ([172.31.16.2]) by antivirus.cc.iitk.ac.in (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2003012810302223988 ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:30:22 +0530 Received: from cselinux1.cse.iitk.ac.in (cselinux1.cse.iitk.ac.in [172.31.16.12]) by mailhost.cse.iitk.ac.in (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h0S4x6gt010816; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:29:06 +0530 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:31:57 +0530 (IST) From: Ashish Pandey To: manet-request@ietf.org cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030126170003.11948.69501.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] Re: manet digest, Vol 1 #317 - 2 msgs 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi There is a paper on fuzzy based load management and routing issues..by J. Habetha, B. Walke. Fuzzy rule-based mobility and load management for self-organizing wireless networks. Journal of Wireless Information Networks, Special Issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs): Standards, Research, Applications, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 119-140, Apr 2002. You can download the paper from http://www.comnets.rwth-aachen.de/cnroot_engl.html in the publications area. hope it help.. regards Ashish Pandey Deptt. of CSE Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur - 208016 -- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 05:53:43 2003 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 FAA20653 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 05:53:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SBEbC10033 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:14:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SBEbJ10030 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:14:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20647 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 05:53:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SB5NJ09049; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:05:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SAx9J08840 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 05:59:09 -0500 Received: from relay2.bt.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20508 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 05:37:44 -0500 (EST) From: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com Received: from smtprelay.gecm.com ([62.172.222.133] helo=masterpmdf.btdc.gecm.com) by relay2.bt.net with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 18dTB3-00035L-00 for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:41:13 +0000 Received: from mspm01.btdc.gecm.com ([10.28.48.3]) by masterpmdf.btdc.gecm.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #45000) with ESMTP id <0H9F0077D710Z8@masterpmdf.btdc.gecm.com> for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:41:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gscexm05.gsc.glasgow.gecm.com ([10.1.128.17]) by mspm01.btdc.gecm.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #39438) with ESMTP id <01KRRKFT1FN60008QP@mspm01.btdc.gecm.com> for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:37:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gscexm05.gsc.glasgow.gecm.com (unverified) by gscexm05.gsc.glasgow.gecm.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:40:50 +0000 Received: by gscexm05.gsc.glasgow.gecm.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:40:50 +0000 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:39:40 +0000 Subject: RE: [manet] MANET minutes To: manet@ietf.org Message-id: <69B9BACEA89ED411BEC200B0D049FBE0013ECE11@gbwexm01.gmrc.gecm.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , A rather overdue comment I'm afraid > Minutes of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) > 55th IETF Proceedings > Thursday, Nov 21 at 1300-1500 > OLSR Update: Thomas Clausen > > (see on-line for details). A new version of OLSR was update > (now version 8). Posting to ID editor was munged and the > draft was posted to the list in the interim. There are no > major changes. The feedback was that most people intending > to use OLSR didn't want all the features. They wanted > something like version 3 or 4. Whilst I'm sure that this represents the meeting, just for the record it doesn't represent everyone's view. The major change in version 5, some details of which were worked out in version 6, was the introduction of multiple interfaces and host and network associations. These are both of definite interest in applications we expect to want to cover in the future. I note that no such comment was made about TBRPF, which has similar functionality, and I would expect the next stage IETF AHRP(s) to retain these features. (Some of the other features in OLSR versions 5+ are also of potential interest.) *************************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. *************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 06:14:01 2003 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 GAA21038 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:14:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SBYua11023 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:34:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SBYuJ11020 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:34:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21033 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SBQZJ10552; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:26:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SBPgJ10466 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:25:42 -0500 Received: from relay3.bt.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20840 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:04:16 -0500 (EST) From: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com Received: from smtprelay.gecm.com ([62.172.222.133] helo=masterpmdf.btdc.gecm.com) by relay3.bt.net with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 18dTal-0006Zs-00 for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:07:47 +0000 Received: from mspm01.btdc.gecm.com ([10.28.48.3]) by masterpmdf.btdc.gecm.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #45000) with ESMTP id <0H9F0091B897F2@masterpmdf.btdc.gecm.com> for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:07:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from brwexc02.barrow.gecm.com ([10.1.1.57]) by mspm01.btdc.gecm.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #39438) with ESMTP id <01KRRLCR2UUK0008QV@mspm01.btdc.gecm.com> for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:04:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from brwexc02.barrow.gecm.com (unverified) by brwexc02.barrow.gecm.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:10:19 +0000 Received: by BRWEXC02 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:10:19 +0000 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:01:36 +0000 Subject: RE: [manet] random waypoint model To: manet@ietf.org Message-id: <69B9BACEA89ED411BEC200B0D049FBE0013ECE12@gbwexm01.gmrc.gecm.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Not everyone assumes that the Random Waypoint Model must range speed in > (0,Vmax]. In fact, all our research ranges speed in [Vmin, Vmax] when we > use the Random Waypoint. Furthermore, we usually keep Vmin and Vmax within > ten percent of Vavg. We have never published a result using 0 as Vmin for > all velocity cases. If I'm not mistaken, the mean speed tends towards the harmonic mean averaged over [Vmin, Vmax] which is (Vmax-Vmin)/log(Vmax-Vmin) (natural log). For Vmin = 0.9v and Vmax=1.1v this is 0.9967v, which is close enough to v for practical purposes. (For Vmin equal to zero this is zero, hence the original result.) This ignores any waiting at waypoints. Coincidentally this speed range is also one we have used. There is another property of the random waypoint model which has slightly undesirable consequences, that performance of even an ideal AHRP using a random waypoint model as v->0 is not the same as the static case. This is because the spatial distribution of a node's position using a random waypoint model in a bounded area is not uniform, there is a greater probability of finding a node near the centre of the area. Where radio ranges are limited and node density is not high this is quite noticeable (giving better results for the random waypoint model than the static distribution). My colleagues who observed and explained the above have also used a random walk model with reflections which avoids the above result, having a uniform spatial distribution. Of course this represents real life behaviour even less than the random waypoint model does. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 10:25:06 2003 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 KAA27790 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:25:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SFk5d27729 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:46:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFk5J27726 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:46:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27758 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:24:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFYQJ26485; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:34:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFXkJ26435 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:33:46 -0500 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27445 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:12:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from zephyrin (cedricadjih1.inria.fr [128.93.23.31]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h0SFFVr06869; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:15:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000c01c2c6e4$10651ba0$1f175d80@inria.fr> From: "Philippe Jacquet" To: , References: <69B9BACEA89ED411BEC200B0D049FBE0013ECE11@gbwexm01.gmrc.gecm.com> Subject: Re: [manet] MANET minutes Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:43:53 +0100 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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Chris, Nothing will be dropped in OLSR version 8. The main changes are only editorial for the convenience of presentation. Among them is the fact that the main first description of OLSR will be in single interface mode. The multiple interface mode is described as an option (activated when several interfaces coexist). We have detected that the presentation of OLSR was much more complicated when starting with multiple interface (because of all these weird cases with overheared interfaces). Therefore we prefer now to proceed in a two steps description in order to clarify the presentation: first step: single interface mode, second step: multiple interface mode. Of course at the end OLSR is a multiple interface routing protocol. Best regards, Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:39 AM Subject: RE: [manet] MANET minutes > A rather overdue comment I'm afraid > > > Minutes of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) > > 55th IETF Proceedings > > Thursday, Nov 21 at 1300-1500 > > > OLSR Update: Thomas Clausen > > > > (see on-line for details). A new version of OLSR was update > > (now version 8). Posting to ID editor was munged and the > > draft was posted to the list in the interim. There are no > > major changes. The feedback was that most people intending > > to use OLSR didn't want all the features. They wanted > > something like version 3 or 4. > > Whilst I'm sure that this represents the meeting, just for > the record it doesn't represent everyone's view. The major > change in version 5, some details of which were worked out > in version 6, was the introduction of multiple interfaces > and host and network associations. These are both of definite > interest in applications we expect to want to cover in the > future. I note that no such comment was made about TBRPF, > which has similar functionality, and I would expect the > next stage IETF AHRP(s) to retain these features. (Some of > the other features in OLSR versions 5+ are also of potential > interest.) > > > *************************************************************************** > > This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended > recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. > You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or > distribute its contents to any other person. > > *************************************************************************** > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 28 10:28:51 2003 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 KAA27884 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:28:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SFnos27962 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:49:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFnoJ27959 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:49:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27875 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:28:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFTJJ26229; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:29:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFPXJ26088 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:25:33 -0500 Received: from Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27259 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:04:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.ucis.dal.ca (WebMail.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.95]) by Linus.UCIS.Dal.Ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0SF7VJH018892; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:07:31 -0400 (AST) X-WebMail-UserID: zhen@mail.cs.dal.ca Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:07:41 -0400 From: zhen To: manet@ietf.org Cc: dholmer@cs.jhu.edu, mgbaker@butane.stanford.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002905 Message-ID: <3E3C9305@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] FWD: RE: About the "Mitigating Routing.. " Paper 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you so much for all kind answers. >===== Original Message From "Sergio Marti" ===== Hi Zhen, Watchdog monitoring applies to the data transmission stage since each data packet includes the whole path the packet should traverse. If nodes are using frequency hopping then it is likely that each pair of nodes will use their own "pattern". Therefore nodes would not be able to overhear their neighbors, so it is a limitation of watchdog. -Sergio ----- Original Message ----- From: "zhen" To: Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 12:23 PM Subject: About the "Mitigating Routing.. " Paper Hello, Sergio, Recently I am working on the topic of securing routing protocols in Ad Hoc Networks. The idea of in the paper mentioned above is very interesting but I have following questions to ask. Does the idea apply to the stage of data transmission or the one of finding routes? I suppose it applies to the first one because only so you have the list of nodes needed by monitoring procedure. How do you feel the limitation of " does not work well in multi-rate wireless networks because nodes might not hear their neighbors forwarding communications due to different modulation"(An On-Demand Secure Routing Protocol Resilient to Byzantine Failures). But I suppose if nodes can communicate, they should be in same modulation model. Is this the right case? thanks for any help Zhen Zhen Graduate CS Dalhousie University _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 10:48:24 2003 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 KAA28694 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:48:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SG9OC30225 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:09:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SG9OJ30222 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:09:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28585 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:47:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFsiJ28230; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:54:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0G3DaJ03234 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 22:13:36 -0500 Received: from ecel.ufl.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA18983 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:58:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1028 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2003 03:04:26 -0000 Received: from brain.ecel.ufl.edu (128.227.232.22) by bunny.ecel.ufl.edu with QMQP; 16 Jan 2003 03:04:26 -0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 22:02:48 -0500 (EST) From: Wenjing Lou X-X-Sender: To: Seung Yi cc: , Subject: Re: [manet] key management In-Reply-To: <003101c2bcf3$9582d750$0101a8c0@oracle> Message-ID: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Centralized control mechanism (such as CA) is not suitable in a MANET because of the node mobility and the lack of infrastructure. I saw two interesting approaches for the key management in MANET. One is to retain the concept of CA but distribute its functionality into multiple servers using secret sharing. Papers adopting this approach include L. Zhou, Z. Haas, "Securing ad hoc networks", IEEE networks magazine, vol.13, no.6, 1999 J. Kong, P. Zerfos, H. Luo, S. Lu, L. Zhang, "Providing robust and ubiquitous security support for manet", ICNP'01 and the one mentioned in Yi's email. The other appoach is totally distributed key management similar to that used in PGP. The paper proposed this approach is J-P. Hubaux, L. Buttyan, and S. Capkun, "The quest for security in mobile ad hoc networks", MobiHOC'01 Wenjing On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Seung Yi wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shweta Bhandare" > To: ; > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:14 PM > Subject: Re: [manet] key management > > > > Is Manet Key Management centralized or distributed, public key or not, > > etc. Can anyone give me pointers to find information in this context? > > > > Thanks, > > Shweta > > > > > > We have a extended version of last year's ICNP presentation in a technical report. > > Key Management for Heterogeneous Ad Hoc Wireless Networks > Seung Yi, Robin Kravets > Poster Presentation, 10th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP 2002) > Detailed version is available as a technical report UIUCDCS-R-2002-2290 > > Should be enough as a starting point. > > Regards, > > - Seung > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 28 10:49:02 2003 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 KAA28714 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:49:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SGA1730294 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SGA1J30287 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:10:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28709 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:48:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFtuJ28348; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:55:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M5GfJ12911 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:16:41 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21639 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:58:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:00:32 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [66.57.224.18] From: "leb7" To: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:01:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2003 05:00:32.0500 (UTC) FILETIME=[310D2340:01C2C1D3] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] dsr and more. 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, first i would apreciate it if someone can link me to a current draft for dsr. the one i have is: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-07.txt which expired august 2002. also, i am interested in knowing what everyone thinks about mutlimedia (audio and video) over ad hoc networks. what development are underway? are there any specific protocols for this purpose? who is working on this in general? thanks, louis _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 10:49:38 2003 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 KAA28748 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:49:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SGAc030366 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:10:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SGAcJ30363 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:10:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28731 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:49:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFtdJ28319; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:55:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0IG6KJ30263 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:06:20 -0500 Received: from mail-mta2.service.ohio-state.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28137 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:49:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from cis.ohio-state.edu (185.netlab.ohio-state.edu [164.107.61.185]) by mail-mta2.service.ohio-state.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.6 (built Apr 26 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H8X00EDC2SGU0@mail-mta2.service.ohio-state.edu> for manet@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:53:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:56:08 -0500 From: Hongwei Zhang Subject: Re: [manet] about clustering computation In-reply-to: To: ashishp@cse.iitk.ac.in Cc: manet@ietf.org Message-id: <3E297918.2060206@cis.ohio-state.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_+OGYj3p79xOE/aaP/5flww)" X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 References: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --Boundary_(ID_+OGYj3p79xOE/aaP/5flww) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Ashish, In terms of scalable clustering and self-healing of clusters in the presence of complex perturbations, we have a paper on this as follows: Hongwei Zhang, Anish Arora, "GS^3 : Scalable Self-configuration and Self-healing in Wireless Networks", /21st ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2002)/. Best, Hongwei >On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Ashish Pandey wrote: > > > >>Hi >> >>I'm research student in Deptt. of Computer Science & Engg. at Indian >>Institute of Technology, Kanpur. Nowadays i'm working on Manet, i'm >>basically working on clustering mean formation of clusters and their >>stability..so can anyone suggest me which clustering scheme there are >>using in ad hoc networks >> >>regards >> >>Ashish >> >>-- >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 > > > > --Boundary_(ID_+OGYj3p79xOE/aaP/5flww) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Ashish,

In terms of scalable clustering and self-healing of clusters in the presence of complex perturbations, we have a paper on this as follows:
Hongwei Zhang, Anish Arora, "GS3: Scalable Self-configuration and Self-healing in Wireless Networks", 21st ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2002).
Best,

Hongwei


On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Ashish Pandey wrote:

  
Hi 

I'm research student in Deptt. of Computer Science & Engg. at Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur. Nowadays i'm working on Manet, i'm
basically working on clustering mean formation of clusters and their
stability..so can anyone suggest me which clustering scheme there are
using in ad hoc networks

regards

Ashish

-- 


_______________________________________________
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

--Boundary_(ID_+OGYj3p79xOE/aaP/5flww)-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 10:49:41 2003 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 KAA28761 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:49:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SGAdW30382 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:10:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SGAdJ30379 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:10:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28728 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:49:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFtOJ28290; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:55:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0HBdPJ22980 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:39:25 -0500 Received: from mpls-qmqp-01.inet.qwest.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA18235 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:23:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 44429 invoked by uid 0); 17 Jan 2003 11:26:39 -0000 Received: from mpls-pop-09.inet.qwest.net (63.231.195.9) by mpls-qmqp-01.inet.qwest.net with QMQP; 17 Jan 2003 11:26:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO JEFFFUJITSU) (61.72.116.180) by mpls-pop-09.inet.qwest.net with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 11:26:38 -0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:29:55 +0900 Message-ID: From: "Jeff Boleng" To: "Ankur Jain" , "Harpreet S. Arora" , manet@ietf.org Cc: "Tracy Camp" Subject: RE: [manet] Manet Applications 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 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <010801c2bd30$e38acec0$2af15ecb@ankur> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Also, all the code is available from our paper to anyone requesting it. I can be reached at jeff@boleng.com, and Tracy Camp can be reached at tcamp@mines.edu. Jeff Ref: > T. Camp, J. Boleng, and V. Davies, A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc > Network Research, Wireless Communication & Mobile Computing (WCMC): > Special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking: Research, Trends and > Applications, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 483-502, 2002 -----Original Message----- From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Ankur Jain Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:16 PM To: Harpreet S. Arora; manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] Manet Applications Hi Harpreet, If you are looking for some other mobility models, there is a generator BonnMotion which also generates scenario files compatible to ns2. I think their model is good and can defintely be used for commercial applications. Regarding defense apps, one has to make lots of assumptions which 'may not' be able to model correctly using any currently available models. Hope it helps. Regards Ankur ----- Original Message ----- From: Harpreet S. Arora To: Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:57 AM Subject: [manet] Manet Applications > Hi, > > I am looking for literature on commercial and defense applications of > MANETs. Most of the papers currently show simulation results based on the > random way-point model, which might not be an accurate modelling of the real > life applications. Are there more accurate mobility models available? Can > anyone please guide me to literature on the related fields? > > Thanks, > Harpreet > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 28 10:52:07 2003 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 KAA28871 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:52:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SGD7930552 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:13:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SGD7J30549 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:13:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28854 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:51:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFu8J28382; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:56:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NM0JJ27986 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:00:19 -0500 Received: from che.onthejob.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20887 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from che.onthejob.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by che.onthejob.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h0NLiQ3C020047 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:44:26 -0600 Received: (from dyoung@localhost) by che.onthejob.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h0NLiQ2O020045 for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:44:26 -0600 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:44:26 -0600 From: David Young To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? Message-ID: <20030123214426.GC11059@che.onthejob.net> Mail-Followup-To: manet@ietf.org References: <00c901c2c30a$7b2f9380$ca413b80@SWEETPEA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 08:20:43PM +0100, Pablo Serrano Y??ez-Mingot wrote: > Does anybody have an actual application where there is > a true need for QoS? Yes. Let's posit a "neighborhood area network" (NAN) connecting homes in a 25 city block region with a multihop radio network. It is desirable for it to be built on a grassroots basis. Moreover, it is *possible* for it to be built on a grassroots basis if certain technical conditions are met. I can think of two technical conditions off the top of my head: 1) Nodes on the network can be installed as or more easily than television aerials, and 2) the network is self-organizing. Cleary a self-organizing multihop network such as a NAN needs an ad hoc routing protocol. What are its uses that it requires QoS, though? Media activists would like for a NAN to carry radio and video streams containing local programming. Consumers will benefit from IP telephony on the NAN: there will be no per-call or per-minute fees, and all the "extras" the local telco sells them (voicemail, call-waiting, call-forwarding) can be provided by their home PC. Both of these applications benefit from QoS. Dave > > Hi all, > > I fully agree with 'SWAN philosophy', in the sense that > only a practical approach is feasible in ad hoc networks > (via a simple service differentiation). > > However, for me there is still an unanswered question, > of "certain importance": When is needed QoS in ad hoc > networks? I think ad hoc networks are created towards > one concrete purpose, therefore all traffic might be > considered of the same importance. > > I don't think ad hoc networks are going to be used as > "multipurpose networks", where service differentiation > is a must, at least during X months/years. > > Does anybody have an actual application where there is > a true need for QoS? > > "Its still early days for this topic I suspect", > Andrew stated. I also agree here. > > Cheers, > > Pbl > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 28 10:53:49 2003 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 KAA28936 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SGEnQ30665 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:14:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SGEnJ30662 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:14:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28910 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:53:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SFuQJ28425; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:56:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0S24kJ01492 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:04:46 -0500 Received: from butane.stanford.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02622 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:43:30 -0500 (EST) From: mgbaker@butane.stanford.edu Received: from butane.stanford.edu (localhost.Stanford.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by butane.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6782A558A; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:12:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from butane.stanford.edu (mgbaker@localhost) by butane.stanford.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h0S2CuZR020778; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:12:56 -0800 Message-Id: <200301280212.h0S2CuZR020778@butane.stanford.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: zhen Cc: manet@ietf.org, mgbaker@butane.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [manet] Questions regarding misbehavior detection In-Reply-To: Message from zhen of "Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:29:16 -0400." <3E3439FD@webmail.ucis.dal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:12:56 -0800 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Does the idea apply to the stage of data transmission or the one of finding > routes? (In the paper, it does not specify the attacks that this approach can > solve). I suppose it applies to the first one because only so you have the > list of nodes needed by monitoring procedure. Zhen, There's been a lot more work on really securing ad hoc routing protocols since this paper. This paper isn't a security paper, since there are so many attacks it is not intended for. It is more a sort of "robustness improvement" approach. > How do you feel the limitation of it"does not work well in multi-rate wireless > networks because nodes might not hear their neighbors forwarding > communications due to different modulation"(An On-Demand Secure Routing > Protocol Resilient to Byzantine Failures). But I suppose if nodes can > communicate, they should be in same modulation model. Is this the right case? I'm not quite sure I understand your question here -- my apologies. > Also I heard that this method(I mean, misbehavior detection) can not detect > all misbehaviors. Any thought? Certainly it cannot detect all misbehaviors! It does nothing to secure the routing protocol, for instance. It was more a first attempt to see what we can do for throughput with a little bit of machinery that doesn't much interfere with the routing protocol itself. Best wishes, Mary _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 11:30:08 2003 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 LAA29970 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SGp9t00943 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:51:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SGp9J00940 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:51:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29957 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:29:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SGY3J31775; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SGVxJ31661 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:31:59 -0500 Received: from maredsous.cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29438 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:10:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dbj@localhost) by maredsous.cs.rice.edu id h0SGH8i75838; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:17:08 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:17:08 -0600 From: Dave Johnson To: leb7 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] dsr and more. Message-ID: <20030128101708.A75828@maredsous.cs.rice.edu> Reply-To: Dave Johnson References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from louisleb7@hotmail.com on Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:01:37AM -0500 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , leb7 said: > Hi, > first i would apreciate it if someone can link me to a current draft for > dsr. > the one i have is: > draft-ietf-manet-dsr-07.txt > which expired august 2002. That is still the current version of the draft. We have been working on a revised version but have not quite finished it yet. The new version should be out soon. Dave _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 14:53:41 2003 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 OAA05251 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:53:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SKElE15080 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:14:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SKElJ15077 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:14:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05229 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SJsCJ13393; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:54:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SJrFJ13332 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:53:15 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA04643 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:31:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 15319 invoked by uid 417); 28 Jan 2003 19:35:09 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 28 Jan 2003 19:35:09 -0000 Received: from ankur ([203.94.198.28]) (AUTH: LOGIN ankurjain@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:34:48 -0700 Message-ID: <00c001c2c704$9885d720$7dc65ecb@ankur> Reply-To: "Ankur Jain" From: "Ankur Jain" To: manet@ietf.org References: <1043688915.7816.274.camel@ziggy> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:57:25 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello everybody, I have some doubt about QoS after doing experiments on the testbed for ad hoc networks. In our experiments, we placed the nodes strategically so that they are on the periphery of the radio range of each other. Then we started the packets transfer and asked the nodes to move about their position. Our results show that the wireless link is so unstable that sometimes 50% of packets get lost. Fifty percent is such a high figure for packet loss. I repeated the experiments many times but the loss percantage varied from 5% to upto 70%. We conducted the expts. in the office environment so there was some interference with the office's wireless LAN and other RF expts running nearby. I wanted to ask that if we can't even ensure connectivity in such a small region, how will we guarantee QoS over any infrastructure-less network. If there is some fixed infrastructure then we can give some assurance of QoS over some no. of hops. But I don't think that we can fully guarantee to provide specified bandwidth in real ad hoc networks - be it a militray application or in emergency situations and the network containing hundreds of nodes. And in case of fairs/sports events, I think the network won't even work with 802.11b due to hidden node / exposed node problem where many nodes are in the radio range of each other. I think right now the definition of QoS over ad hoc network is not clear. Is there any proposal of including QoS in IRTF. Doing QoS tests in simulators won't give the actual scenario. Has anybody done QoS experiments with the actual testbed (with wireless links) for ad hoc networks. I am really anxious to know their results. Please give me some pointers if there are any papers on this. Best Regards Ankur ----- Original Message ----- From: Rex Buddenberg To: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot Cc: Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 07:31, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > > > But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a > > 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be > > considered an 'overlay network', and not a true > > mobile ad hoc network. > > > > Any real world scenario of any scale will be a mixture of infrastructure > and MANET. I can't imagine a practical standalone MANET of any size. > So yes, there will be a fixed infrastructure -- that the fire > departments use on a daily basis and for both operational and > non-operational traffic. > In the event of a catastrophe (the large forest fire example) a couple > things happen: > - some fixed infrastructure is damaged > - the existing fire department resources may need to extend > connectivity into unplanned places so you have ad hoc buildout. > - the local fire department is augmented with assets that surge into > the area. A lot more ad hot (freudian sic... hoc) buildout. > - as the fire progresses and assets move, the topology of the ad hoc > part of the network will surely change. Similarly, the places where the > ad hoc portions of the network connect to the fixed portions can be > expected to change too. > > > > I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network > > should be deployed (I think). > > If you have any experience with either military or emergency services, > you should have develope antibodies that say: 'the last thing you should > do in the face of a crisis is reorganize'. The order of battle should > be the same as the order of sailing (Nelson). > > You won't have a previously > > installed services, because there won't be what I called > > 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. > > All emergency services outfits I've ever dealt with have previously > installed services that they use daily -- this is a Good Thing since the > crew knows how the stuff works. > > All traffic on the > > network will be the same (from my point of view) in > > terms of priorities. > > Don't agree, but easy to go overboard. There will be urgent traffic and > there will be not so urgent traffic. > But sorting this into more than about 4 bins represents such a > departure from KISS that you get in real trouble. One outfit I'm > working with (government, of course) is looking at 64 levels of priority > since they have 6 bits to work with ... aaack. > These comments are to substantive traffic (I need the next water drop > over here). They are not directed at the network convergence traffic, > which may indeed be single priority. > > > > > Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable > > authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes > > are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision > > an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) > > Take a look at the IETF diff-serv exercise that ended last year. The > hard lessons learned there: > - the QoS control cures may be worse than the disease > - departure from KISS has severe consequences. > Note that the need for authentication assumes the need for QoS control. > - attempts to diddle with the DS byte open DoS attack vectors. > > Second, take a look at the IEPREP working group in IETF. Lotsa cruft in > the archive, but the basics are 1) overprovision the fixed network and > pre-empt the QoS control problem there. 2) Yes, if you're going to > provide _any_ kind of premium service, you're going to need an > authentication system to prevent abuse (by both insiders and > outsiders). > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 28 14:55:44 2003 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 OAA05320 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:55:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SKGo815187 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:16:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SKGoJ15184 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:16:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05297 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:55:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SJqfJ13317; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:52:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SJnEJ13126 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:49:14 -0500 Received: from mm02snlnto.sandia.gov (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA04477 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:27:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from 132.175.109.4 by mm02snlnto.sandia.gov with ESMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:31:08 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 95b8ca9b-fe4b-44f7-8977-a6cb2d3025ff Received: from ES01SNLNT.sandia.gov (es01snlnt.sandia.gov [134.253.130.4]) by mailgate2.sandia.gov (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h0SJV9gu005046; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:31:09 -0700 (MST) Received: by es01snlnt.sandia.gov with Internet Mail Service ( 5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:31:08 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Van Leeuwen, Brian P" To: "'rbandaru@mtu.edu'" , manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] Attacks on mobile ad hoc networks Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:31:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-WSS-ID: 122805F61260380-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A report discussing several specific threats directed at the routing data of an ad hoc network will answer some of your questions. The report addresses security issues that arise even when authentication mechanisms are used to protect the ad hoc routing data. The report is available at: http://infoserve.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2001/013119.pd f -----Original Message----- From: rbandaru@mtu.edu [mailto:rbandaru@mtu.edu] Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 12:13 AM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Attacks on mobile ad hoc networks Hi, Can any one help me to find the vulnerabilities of ad hoc networks? I was able to figure out attacks that can occur due to selfishness of nodes, or attacks due to compromised nodes or attacks related to physical layer like signal jamming and somethings like that. I will be very thankful if any one can help me in finding attacks related to transport layer or data link layer, or any other attacks related to network or physical layers. Thank You. _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jan 28 15:09:22 2003 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 PAA05760 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:09:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SKUSV15907 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:30:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SKUSJ15904 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:30:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05724 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:08:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SK7aJ14706; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:07:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SK6VJ14033 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:06:31 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04920 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:44:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:48:26 -0800 Received: from 128.39.50.80 by sea1fd.sea1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:48:25 GMT X-Originating-IP: [128.39.50.80] From: "Ole Erik" To: manet@ietf.org Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:48:25 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2003 19:48:26.0011 (UTC) FILETIME=[39044EB0:01C2C706] Subject: [manet] managment monitoring tools 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Does anyone have a good link for management monitoring tools?? _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 15:48:44 2003 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 PAA06913 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:48:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SL9pO19312 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:09:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SL9pJ19309 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:09:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06891 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:48:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SKiOJ17229; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:44:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SKhvJ17191 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:43:57 -0500 Received: from web21001.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA06163 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:22:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030128202548.79561.qmail@web21001.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.18.210.189] by web21001.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:25:48 PST Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:25:48 -0800 (PST) From: Yang Xiao Reply-To: YangXiao@ieee.org Subject: Re: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks To: Ankur Jain , manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <00c001c2c704$9885d720$7dc65ecb@ankur> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ankur Your testbed may depend on some WLAN cards/AP from particular companies. Those WLAN cards/AP cannot support QoS well. Conclusions from such experiments should be not used as judgments for QoS enabled Ad hoc networks in a near future. Regards Yang --- Ankur Jain wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I have some doubt about QoS after doing experiments on the testbed > for ad > hoc networks. > > In our experiments, we placed the nodes strategically so that they > are on > the periphery of the radio range of each other. Then we started the > packets > transfer and asked the nodes to move about their position. Our > results show > that the wireless link is so unstable that sometimes 50% of packets > get > lost. Fifty percent is such a high figure for packet loss. I > repeated the > experiments many times but the loss percantage varied from 5% to upto > 70%. > We conducted the expts. in the office environment so there was some > interference with the office's wireless LAN and other RF expts > running > nearby. > > I wanted to ask that if we can't even ensure connectivity in such a > small > region, how will we guarantee QoS over any infrastructure-less > network. If > there is some fixed infrastructure then we can give some assurance of > QoS > over some no. of hops. But I don't think that we can fully guarantee > to > provide specified bandwidth in real ad hoc networks - be it a > militray > application or in emergency situations and the network containing > hundreds > of nodes. And in case of fairs/sports events, I think the network > won't even > work with 802.11b due to hidden node / exposed node problem where > many nodes > are in the radio range of each other. > > I think right now the definition of QoS over ad hoc network is not > clear. Is > there any proposal of including QoS in IRTF. Doing QoS tests in > simulators > won't give the actual scenario. Has anybody done QoS experiments with > the > actual testbed (with wireless links) for ad hoc networks. I am really > anxious to know their results. Please give me some pointers if there > are any > papers on this. > > Best Regards > Ankur > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rex Buddenberg > To: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot > Cc: > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:05 PM > Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > > > > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 07:31, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > > > > > But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a > > > 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be > > > considered an 'overlay network', and not a true > > > mobile ad hoc network. > > > > > > > Any real world scenario of any scale will be a mixture of > infrastructure > > and MANET. I can't imagine a practical standalone MANET of any > size. > > So yes, there will be a fixed infrastructure -- that the fire > > departments use on a daily basis and for both operational and > > non-operational traffic. > > In the event of a catastrophe (the large forest fire example) a > couple > > things happen: > > - some fixed infrastructure is damaged > > - the existing fire department resources may need to extend > > connectivity into unplanned places so you have ad hoc buildout. > > - the local fire department is augmented with assets that surge > into > > the area. A lot more ad hot (freudian sic... hoc) buildout. > > - as the fire progresses and assets move, the topology of the ad > hoc > > part of the network will surely change. Similarly, the places > where the > > ad hoc portions of the network connect to the fixed portions can be > > expected to change too. > > > > > > > I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network > > > should be deployed (I think). > > > > If you have any experience with either military or emergency > services, > > you should have develope antibodies that say: 'the last thing you > should > > do in the face of a crisis is reorganize'. The order of battle > should > > be the same as the order of sailing (Nelson). > > > > You won't have a previously > > > installed services, because there won't be what I called > > > 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. > > > > All emergency services outfits I've ever dealt with have previously > > installed services that they use daily -- this is a Good Thing > since the > > crew knows how the stuff works. > > > > All traffic on the > > > network will be the same (from my point of view) in > > > terms of priorities. > > > > Don't agree, but easy to go overboard. There will be urgent > traffic and > > there will be not so urgent traffic. > > But sorting this into more than about 4 bins represents such a > > departure from KISS that you get in real trouble. One outfit I'm > > working with (government, of course) is looking at 64 levels of > priority > > since they have 6 bits to work with ... aaack. > > These comments are to substantive traffic (I need the next water > drop > > over here). They are not directed at the network convergence > traffic, > > which may indeed be single priority. > > > > > > > > Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable > > > authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes > > > are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision > > > an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) > > > > Take a look at the IETF diff-serv exercise that ended last year. > The > > hard lessons learned there: > > - the QoS control cures may be worse than the disease > > - departure from KISS has severe consequences. > > Note that the need for authentication assumes the need for QoS > control. > > - attempts to diddle with the DS byte open DoS attack vectors. > > > > Second, take a look at the IEPREP working group in IETF. Lotsa > cruft in > > the archive, but the basics are 1) overprovision the fixed network > and > > pre-empt the QoS control problem there. 2) Yes, if you're going to > > provide _any_ kind of premium service, you're going to need an > > authentication system to prevent abuse (by both insiders and > > outsiders). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 15:51:32 2003 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 PAA07014 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:51:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SLCc619502 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:12:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SLCcJ19498 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:12:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07000 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:51:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SKchJ16896; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:38:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SKa1J16134 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:36:01 -0500 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05898 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from zidane.cc.vt.edu (IDENT:mirapoint@zidane-lb.cc.vt.edu [10.1.1.13]) by lennier.cc.vt.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0SKHiI227024; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:17:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ari424h (ari424-h.ari.vt.edu [208.17.194.135]) by zidane.cc.vt.edu (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.2-CR) with SMTP id AZJ77712; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:17:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Kaustubh Phanse" To: "Ankur Jain" , Subject: RE: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:24:11 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-reply-to: <00c001c2c704$9885d720$7dc65ecb@ankur> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0SKa1J16135 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ankur, We have conducted similar experiments (in an indoor environment) as a part of our research. I would like to point out two things here: (1) Yes, there is considerable amount of "unpredictability" in the performance of nodes especially at the periphery or fringe of the radio range. However, its not necessary that this will always be the case in all real-life scenarios. (2) Secondly, this unpredictability "typically" increases considerably in an indoor environment (with lots of walls, metal structures, microwave ovens, etc.) as compared to an outdoor environment. So, what you are looking at is kind of a worst-case scenario. Talking about QoS in ad hoc networks, I agree that one may not be able to "fully" provide any guarantees (bandwidth, delay, etc.). However, as they say: "excellent is the enemy of good." I think the same philosophy can be applied to QoS in ad hoc networks -- just because we cannot have hard guarantess does not make the situation completely hopeless! Our preliminary wireless experiements did include dynamic bandwidth management, and demonstrated its effect using the VIC (video) application. Our results, some other observations, and lessons learnt can be found in the following paper: K. Phanse, L. DaSilva and S. Midkiff, "Extending Policy-Based Management to Ad Hoc Networks," submitted to IEEE Network Magazine, October 2002. Available at: http://www.ee.vt.edu/~kphanse/Adhoc_policy_mgmt.pdf Hope this helps. Best regards, Kaustubh ---------------------------------------------------- Kaustubh S. Phanse kphanse@ee.vt.edu PhD candidate http://www.ee.vt.edu/~kphanse Electrical & Computer Engineering Department Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University ----------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Ankur Jain Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:27 PM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Hello everybody, I have some doubt about QoS after doing experiments on the testbed for ad hoc networks. In our experiments, we placed the nodes strategically so that they are on the periphery of the radio range of each other. Then we started the packets transfer and asked the nodes to move about their position. Our results show that the wireless link is so unstable that sometimes 50% of packets get lost. Fifty percent is such a high figure for packet loss. I repeated the experiments many times but the loss percantage varied from 5% to upto 70%. We conducted the expts. in the office environment so there was some interference with the office's wireless LAN and other RF expts running nearby. I wanted to ask that if we can't even ensure connectivity in such a small region, how will we guarantee QoS over any infrastructure-less network. If there is some fixed infrastructure then we can give some assurance of QoS over some no. of hops. But I don't think that we can fully guarantee to provide specified bandwidth in real ad hoc networks - be it a militray application or in emergency situations and the network containing hundreds of nodes. And in case of fairs/sports events, I think the network won't even work with 802.11b due to hidden node / exposed node problem where many nodes are in the radio range of each other. I think right now the definition of QoS over ad hoc network is not clear. Is there any proposal of including QoS in IRTF. Doing QoS tests in simulators won't give the actual scenario. Has anybody done QoS experiments with the actual testbed (with wireless links) for ad hoc networks. I am really anxious to know their results. Please give me some pointers if there are any papers on this. Best Regards Ankur ----- Original Message ----- From: Rex Buddenberg To: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot Cc: Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 07:31, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > > > But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a > > 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be > > considered an 'overlay network', and not a true > > mobile ad hoc network. > > > > Any real world scenario of any scale will be a mixture of infrastructure > and MANET. I can't imagine a practical standalone MANET of any size. > So yes, there will be a fixed infrastructure -- that the fire > departments use on a daily basis and for both operational and > non-operational traffic. > In the event of a catastrophe (the large forest fire example) a couple > things happen: > - some fixed infrastructure is damaged > - the existing fire department resources may need to extend > connectivity into unplanned places so you have ad hoc buildout. > - the local fire department is augmented with assets that surge into > the area. A lot more ad hot (freudian sic... hoc) buildout. > - as the fire progresses and assets move, the topology of the ad hoc > part of the network will surely change. Similarly, the places where the > ad hoc portions of the network connect to the fixed portions can be > expected to change too. > > > > I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network > > should be deployed (I think). > > If you have any experience with either military or emergency services, > you should have develope antibodies that say: 'the last thing you should > do in the face of a crisis is reorganize'. The order of battle should > be the same as the order of sailing (Nelson). > > You won't have a previously > > installed services, because there won't be what I called > > 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. > > All emergency services outfits I've ever dealt with have previously > installed services that they use daily -- this is a Good Thing since the > crew knows how the stuff works. > > All traffic on the > > network will be the same (from my point of view) in > > terms of priorities. > > Don't agree, but easy to go overboard. There will be urgent traffic and > there will be not so urgent traffic. > But sorting this into more than about 4 bins represents such a > departure from KISS that you get in real trouble. One outfit I'm > working with (government, of course) is looking at 64 levels of priority > since they have 6 bits to work with ... aaack. > These comments are to substantive traffic (I need the next water drop > over here). They are not directed at the network convergence traffic, > which may indeed be single priority. > > > > > Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable > > authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes > > are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision > > an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) > > Take a look at the IETF diff-serv exercise that ended last year. The > hard lessons learned there: > - the QoS control cures may be worse than the disease > - departure from KISS has severe consequences. > Note that the need for authentication assumes the need for QoS control. > - attempts to diddle with the DS byte open DoS attack vectors. > > Second, take a look at the IEPREP working group in IETF. Lotsa cruft in > the archive, but the basics are 1) overprovision the fixed network and > pre-empt the QoS control problem there. 2) Yes, if you're going to > provide _any_ kind of premium service, you're going to need an > authentication system to prevent abuse (by both insiders and > outsiders). > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 28 16:02:24 2003 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 QAA07377 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:02:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SLNTX20067 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:23:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SLNTJ20064 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:23:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07369 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:01:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SL02J18100; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:00:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SKvIJ17915 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:57:18 -0500 Received: from mailserver2.opnet.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06538 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:35:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from wtn11019 (wtn11019.opnet.com [172.16.11.19]) by mailserver2.opnet.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0SKd4d0002333 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:39:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20030128152938.01ead260@mailserver.opnet.com> X-Sender: krao@mailserver.opnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:39:04 -0500 To: manet@ietf.org From: Kartik Rao Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Subject: [manet] DSR connection to the internet 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Does anyone know of any paper or draft that describes the working of DSR when connected to the internet? For example, consider routing packets through a gateway node that has wired interfaces connected to the internet running IP routing and wireless interface running DSR. The packets are routed from the ad-hoc network running DSR to nodes in the internet and vice versa. I am looking for the detailed DSR protocol operation in such a situation. Thanks, Kartik _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 16:17:57 2003 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 QAA07982 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:17:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SLd3F21416 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:39:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SLd3J21413 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:39:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07960 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:17:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SLEgJ19605; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:14:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SLCPJ19482 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:12:25 -0500 Received: from m1.cs.man.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06993 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from eng001.cs.man.ac.uk by m1.cs.man.ac.uk (8.8.8/AL/MJK-2.0) id UAA00887; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:54:11 GMT Received: (from tapselj0@localhost) by eng001.cs.man.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.9.3) id h0SKtqq06744 for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:55:52 GMT Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:55:52 +0000 From: John Tapsell To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Message-ID: <20030128205552.C5023@eng001.cs.man.ac.uk> References: <1043688915.7816.274.camel@ziggy> <00c001c2c704$9885d720$7dc65ecb@ankur> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <00c001c2c704$9885d720$7dc65ecb@ankur>; from ankurjain@softhome.net on Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:57:25AM +0530 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sir, I'm not surprised at your results. See the recent slashdot article on wireless. QoS is a funny thing. When you say "guarantee QoS", what do you mean exactly? For example, do you _need_ a certain latency/throughput/etc, or do you merely want to be notified if it fails? The idea of a traditional QoS (read that as "rsvp") on a manet is obviously flawed. Surely diffserv solutions and things like Swan are the only way to go? JohnFlux On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:57:25AM +0530, Ankur Jain wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I have some doubt about QoS after doing experiments on the testbed for ad > hoc networks. > > In our experiments, we placed the nodes strategically so that they are on > the periphery of the radio range of each other. Then we started the packets > transfer and asked the nodes to move about their position. Our results show > that the wireless link is so unstable that sometimes 50% of packets get > lost. Fifty percent is such a high figure for packet loss. I repeated the > experiments many times but the loss percantage varied from 5% to upto 70%. > We conducted the expts. in the office environment so there was some > interference with the office's wireless LAN and other RF expts running > nearby. > > I wanted to ask that if we can't even ensure connectivity in such a small > region, how will we guarantee QoS over any infrastructure-less network. If > there is some fixed infrastructure then we can give some assurance of QoS > over some no. of hops. But I don't think that we can fully guarantee to > provide specified bandwidth in real ad hoc networks - be it a militray > application or in emergency situations and the network containing hundreds > of nodes. And in case of fairs/sports events, I think the network won't even > work with 802.11b due to hidden node / exposed node problem where many nodes > are in the radio range of each other. > > I think right now the definition of QoS over ad hoc network is not clear. Is > there any proposal of including QoS in IRTF. Doing QoS tests in simulators > won't give the actual scenario. Has anybody done QoS experiments with the > actual testbed (with wireless links) for ad hoc networks. I am really > anxious to know their results. Please give me some pointers if there are any > papers on this. > > Best Regards > Ankur > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rex Buddenberg > To: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot > Cc: > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:05 PM > Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > > > > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 07:31, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > > > > > But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a > > > 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be > > > considered an 'overlay network', and not a true > > > mobile ad hoc network. > > > > > > > Any real world scenario of any scale will be a mixture of infrastructure > > and MANET. I can't imagine a practical standalone MANET of any size. > > So yes, there will be a fixed infrastructure -- that the fire > > departments use on a daily basis and for both operational and > > non-operational traffic. > > In the event of a catastrophe (the large forest fire example) a couple > > things happen: > > - some fixed infrastructure is damaged > > - the existing fire department resources may need to extend > > connectivity into unplanned places so you have ad hoc buildout. > > - the local fire department is augmented with assets that surge into > > the area. A lot more ad hot (freudian sic... hoc) buildout. > > - as the fire progresses and assets move, the topology of the ad hoc > > part of the network will surely change. Similarly, the places where the > > ad hoc portions of the network connect to the fixed portions can be > > expected to change too. > > > > > > > I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network > > > should be deployed (I think). > > > > If you have any experience with either military or emergency services, > > you should have develope antibodies that say: 'the last thing you should > > do in the face of a crisis is reorganize'. The order of battle should > > be the same as the order of sailing (Nelson). > > > > You won't have a previously > > > installed services, because there won't be what I called > > > 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. > > > > All emergency services outfits I've ever dealt with have previously > > installed services that they use daily -- this is a Good Thing since the > > crew knows how the stuff works. > > > > All traffic on the > > > network will be the same (from my point of view) in > > > terms of priorities. > > > > Don't agree, but easy to go overboard. There will be urgent traffic and > > there will be not so urgent traffic. > > But sorting this into more than about 4 bins represents such a > > departure from KISS that you get in real trouble. One outfit I'm > > working with (government, of course) is looking at 64 levels of priority > > since they have 6 bits to work with ... aaack. > > These comments are to substantive traffic (I need the next water drop > > over here). They are not directed at the network convergence traffic, > > which may indeed be single priority. > > > > > > > > Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable > > > authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes > > > are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision > > > an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) > > > > Take a look at the IETF diff-serv exercise that ended last year. The > > hard lessons learned there: > > - the QoS control cures may be worse than the disease > > - departure from KISS has severe consequences. > > Note that the need for authentication assumes the need for QoS control. > > - attempts to diddle with the DS byte open DoS attack vectors. > > > > Second, take a look at the IEPREP working group in IETF. Lotsa cruft in > > the archive, but the basics are 1) overprovision the fixed network and > > pre-empt the QoS control problem there. 2) Yes, if you're going to > > provide _any_ kind of premium service, you're going to need an > > authentication system to prevent abuse (by both insiders and > > outsiders). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Tue Jan 28 17:17:59 2003 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 RAA09883 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SMd6r26049 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:39:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SMd6J26046 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:39:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09876 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SMHmJ24369; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:17:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SMDpJ24151 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:13:51 -0500 Received: from mail.scires.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09128 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:52:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from SRCATL-MTA by mail.scires.com with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:40 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.2 Beta Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:11 -0500 From: "Pete Sholander" To: , , Subject: RE: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ankur, Another thought is that link-state based QoS (latency, jitter, ...) is difficult in general MANETs. However, node-state QoS metrics (e.g., remaining battery level) may be useful for unattended ground-based sensor (UGS) networks that have a high-degree connectivity mesh. --Pete Sholander >>> "Kaustubh Phanse" 01/28/03 03:24PM >>> Ankur, We have conducted similar experiments (in an indoor environment) as a part of our research. I would like to point out two things here: (1) Yes, there is considerable amount of "unpredictability" in the performance of nodes especially at the periphery or fringe of the radio range. However, its not necessary that this will always be the case in all real-life scenarios. (2) Secondly, this unpredictability "typically" increases considerably in an indoor environment (with lots of walls, metal structures, microwave ovens, etc.) as compared to an outdoor environment. So, what you are looking at is kind of a worst-case scenario. Talking about QoS in ad hoc networks, I agree that one may not be able to "fully" provide any guarantees (bandwidth, delay, etc.). However, as they say: "excellent is the enemy of good." I think the same philosophy can be applied to QoS in ad hoc networks -- just because we cannot have hard guarantess does not make the situation completely hopeless! Our preliminary wireless experiements did include dynamic bandwidth management, and demonstrated its effect using the VIC (video) application. Our results, some other observations, and lessons learnt can be found in the following paper: K. Phanse, L. DaSilva and S. Midkiff, "Extending Policy-Based Management to Ad Hoc Networks," submitted to IEEE Network Magazine, October 2002. Available at: http://www.ee.vt.edu/~kphanse/Adhoc_policy_mgmt.pdf Hope this helps. Best regards, Kaustubh ---------------------------------------------------- Kaustubh S. Phanse kphanse@ee.vt.edu PhD candidate http://www.ee.vt.edu/~kphanse Electrical & Computer Engineering Department Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University ----------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Ankur Jain Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:27 PM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Hello everybody, I have some doubt about QoS after doing experiments on the testbed for ad hoc networks. In our experiments, we placed the nodes strategically so that they are on the periphery of the radio range of each other. Then we started the packets transfer and asked the nodes to move about their position. Our results show that the wireless link is so unstable that sometimes 50% of packets get lost. Fifty percent is such a high figure for packet loss. I repeated the experiments many times but the loss percantage varied from 5% to upto 70%. We conducted the expts. in the office environment so there was some interference with the office's wireless LAN and other RF expts running nearby. I wanted to ask that if we can't even ensure connectivity in such a small region, how will we guarantee QoS over any infrastructure-less network. If there is some fixed infrastructure then we can give some assurance of QoS over some no. of hops. But I don't think that we can fully guarantee to provide specified bandwidth in real ad hoc networks - be it a militray application or in emergency situations and the network containing hundreds of nodes. And in case of fairs/sports events, I think the network won't even work with 802.11b due to hidden node / exposed node problem where many nodes are in the radio range of each other. I think right now the definition of QoS over ad hoc network is not clear. Is there any proposal of including QoS in IRTF. Doing QoS tests in simulators won't give the actual scenario. Has anybody done QoS experiments with the actual testbed (with wireless links) for ad hoc networks. I am really anxious to know their results. Please give me some pointers if there are any papers on this. Best Regards Ankur ----- Original Message ----- From: Rex Buddenberg To: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot Cc: Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 07:31, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > > > But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a > > 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be > > considered an 'overlay network', and not a true > > mobile ad hoc network. > > > > Any real world scenario of any scale will be a mixture of infrastructure > and MANET. I can't imagine a practical standalone MANET of any size. > So yes, there will be a fixed infrastructure -- that the fire > departments use on a daily basis and for both operational and > non-operational traffic. > In the event of a catastrophe (the large forest fire example) a couple > things happen: > - some fixed infrastructure is damaged > - the existing fire department resources may need to extend > connectivity into unplanned places so you have ad hoc buildout. > - the local fire department is augmented with assets that surge into > the area. A lot more ad hot (freudian sic... hoc) buildout. > - as the fire progresses and assets move, the topology of the ad hoc > part of the network will surely change. Similarly, the places where the > ad hoc portions of the network connect to the fixed portions can be > expected to change too. > > > > I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network > > should be deployed (I think). > > If you have any experience with either military or emergency services, > you should have develope antibodies that say: 'the last thing you should > do in the face of a crisis is reorganize'. The order of battle should > be the same as the order of sailing (Nelson). > > You won't have a previously > > installed services, because there won't be what I called > > 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. > > All emergency services outfits I've ever dealt with have previously > installed services that they use daily -- this is a Good Thing since the > crew knows how the stuff works. > > All traffic on the > > network will be the same (from my point of view) in > > terms of priorities. > > Don't agree, but easy to go overboard. There will be urgent traffic and > there will be not so urgent traffic. > But sorting this into more than about 4 bins represents such a > departure from KISS that you get in real trouble. One outfit I'm > working with (government, of course) is looking at 64 levels of priority > since they have 6 bits to work with ... aaack. > These comments are to substantive traffic (I need the next water drop > over here). They are not directed at the network convergence traffic, > which may indeed be single priority. > > > > > Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable > > authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes > > are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision > > an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) > > Take a look at the IETF diff-serv exercise that ended last year. The > hard lessons learned there: > - the QoS control cures may be worse than the disease > - departure from KISS has severe consequences. > Note that the need for authentication assumes the need for QoS control. > - attempts to diddle with the DS byte open DoS attack vectors. > > Second, take a look at the IEPREP working group in IETF. Lotsa cruft in > the archive, but the basics are 1) overprovision the fixed network and > pre-empt the QoS control problem there. 2) Yes, if you're going to > provide _any_ kind of premium service, you're going to need an > authentication system to prevent abuse (by both insiders and > outsiders). > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 28 19:02:33 2003 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 TAA11952 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:02:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0T0NiJ32038 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:23:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T0NiJ32035 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:23:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11939 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SN3TJ27046; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:03:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SN0wJ26955 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:00:58 -0500 Received: from exstudent9.city.unisa.edu.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10306 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:39:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by exstudent9.city.unisa.edu.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:11:20 +1030 Message-ID: From: "Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001" To: "'YangXiao@IEEE.ORG'" , Ankur Jain , manet@ietf.org Subject: RE: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:13:40 +1030 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0SN0wJ26956 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Are there any WLAN (IEEE 802.11) card/AP that can support Qos well in MANET? I tend to agree with Ankur that MANET cannot gurantee Qos because of the unreliability (& unpredictability) of the links. In MHO, the best MANET can do is to provide differentiation of services (i.e. one stream has a higher prority than another), which may still result in significant packet losses, and still may not give you the Qos required for a given application (i.e. video). Usually, there is when the application has to adapt to the network resource available (i.e. reduce the quality of video). > -----Original Message----- > From: Yang Xiao [mailto:yangxiao_acm@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 29 January 2003 6:56 > To: Ankur Jain; manet@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks > > > Ankur > > Your testbed may depend on some WLAN cards/AP from particular > companies. > Those WLAN cards/AP cannot support QoS well. > > Conclusions from such experiments should be not used as judgments for > QoS enabled Ad hoc networks in a near future. > > Regards > > Yang > > --- Ankur Jain wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > > > I have some doubt about QoS after doing experiments on the testbed > > for ad > > hoc networks. > > > > In our experiments, we placed the nodes strategically so that they > > are on > > the periphery of the radio range of each other. Then we started the > > packets > > transfer and asked the nodes to move about their position. Our > > results show > > that the wireless link is so unstable that sometimes 50% of packets > > get > > lost. Fifty percent is such a high figure for packet loss. I > > repeated the > > experiments many times but the loss percantage varied from > 5% to upto > > 70%. > > We conducted the expts. in the office environment so there was some > > interference with the office's wireless LAN and other RF expts > > running > > nearby. > > > > I wanted to ask that if we can't even ensure connectivity in such a > > small > > region, how will we guarantee QoS over any infrastructure-less > > network. If > > there is some fixed infrastructure then we can give some > assurance of > > QoS > > over some no. of hops. But I don't think that we can fully guarantee > > to > > provide specified bandwidth in real ad hoc networks - be it a > > militray > > application or in emergency situations and the network containing > > hundreds > > of nodes. And in case of fairs/sports events, I think the network > > won't even > > work with 802.11b due to hidden node / exposed node problem where > > many nodes > > are in the radio range of each other. > > > > I think right now the definition of QoS over ad hoc network is not > > clear. Is > > there any proposal of including QoS in IRTF. Doing QoS tests in > > simulators > > won't give the actual scenario. Has anybody done QoS > experiments with > > the > > actual testbed (with wireless links) for ad hoc networks. I > am really > > anxious to know their results. Please give me some pointers if there > > are any > > papers on this. > > > > Best Regards > > Ankur > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Rex Buddenberg > > To: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot > > Cc: > > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:05 PM > > Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > > > > > > > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 07:31, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > > > > > > > But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a > > > > 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be > > > > considered an 'overlay network', and not a true > > > > mobile ad hoc network. > > > > > > > > > > Any real world scenario of any scale will be a mixture of > > infrastructure > > > and MANET. I can't imagine a practical standalone MANET of any > > size. > > > So yes, there will be a fixed infrastructure -- that the fire > > > departments use on a daily basis and for both operational and > > > non-operational traffic. > > > In the event of a catastrophe (the large forest fire example) a > > couple > > > things happen: > > > - some fixed infrastructure is damaged > > > - the existing fire department resources may need to extend > > > connectivity into unplanned places so you have ad hoc buildout. > > > - the local fire department is augmented with assets that surge > > into > > > the area. A lot more ad hot (freudian sic... hoc) buildout. > > > - as the fire progresses and assets move, the topology of the ad > > hoc > > > part of the network will surely change. Similarly, the places > > where the > > > ad hoc portions of the network connect to the fixed > portions can be > > > expected to change too. > > > > > > > > > > I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network > > > > should be deployed (I think). > > > > > > If you have any experience with either military or emergency > > services, > > > you should have develope antibodies that say: 'the last thing you > > should > > > do in the face of a crisis is reorganize'. The order of battle > > should > > > be the same as the order of sailing (Nelson). > > > > > > You won't have a previously > > > > installed services, because there won't be what I called > > > > 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. > > > > > > All emergency services outfits I've ever dealt with have > previously > > > installed services that they use daily -- this is a Good Thing > > since the > > > crew knows how the stuff works. > > > > > > All traffic on the > > > > network will be the same (from my point of view) in > > > > terms of priorities. > > > > > > Don't agree, but easy to go overboard. There will be urgent > > traffic and > > > there will be not so urgent traffic. > > > But sorting this into more than about 4 bins represents such a > > > departure from KISS that you get in real trouble. One outfit I'm > > > working with (government, of course) is looking at 64 levels of > > priority > > > since they have 6 bits to work with ... aaack. > > > These comments are to substantive traffic (I need the next water > > drop > > > over here). They are not directed at the network convergence > > traffic, > > > which may indeed be single priority. > > > > > > > > > > > Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable > > > > authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes > > > > are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision > > > > an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) > > > > > > Take a look at the IETF diff-serv exercise that ended last year. > > The > > > hard lessons learned there: > > > - the QoS control cures may be worse than the disease > > > - departure from KISS has severe consequences. > > > Note that the need for authentication assumes the need for QoS > > control. > > > - attempts to diddle with the DS byte open DoS attack vectors. > > > > > > Second, take a look at the IEPREP working group in IETF. Lotsa > > cruft in > > > the archive, but the basics are 1) overprovision the fixed network > > and > > > pre-empt the QoS control problem there. 2) Yes, if > you're going to > > > provide _any_ kind of premium service, you're going to need an > > > authentication system to prevent abuse (by both insiders and > > > outsiders). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 28 19:37:41 2003 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 TAA12679 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:37:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0T0wqg01772 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:58:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T0wqJ01769 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:58:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12675 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:37:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T0eYJ00832; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:40:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T0UnJ32338 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:30:49 -0500 Received: from butane.stanford.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12070 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:09:07 -0500 (EST) From: mgbaker@butane.stanford.edu Received: from butane.stanford.edu (localhost.Stanford.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by butane.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E79B2A558A for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:38:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from butane.stanford.edu (mgbaker@localhost) by butane.stanford.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h0T0cl42022628 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:38:47 -0800 Message-Id: <200301290038.h0T0cl42022628@butane.stanford.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] Questions regarding misbehavior detection Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:38:47 -0800 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I didn't manage to CC this to the list successfully. Sorry about that! Since then David Holmer also responded with some excellent comments. Mary Zhen, > Does the idea apply to the stage of data transmission or the one of finding > routes? (In the paper, it does not specify the attacks that this approach can > solve). I suppose it applies to the first one because only so you have the > list of nodes needed by monitoring procedure. There's been a lot more work on actually securing ad hoc routing protocols since this paper. This paper isn't a security paper, since there are so many attacks it is not intended for. It is more a sort of "robustness improvement" approach that is mostly geared towards nodes that, say, have broken network interfaces or something that causes them to be flaky with data packets. > Also I heard that this method(I mean, misbehavior detection) can not detect > all misbehaviors. Any thought? Certainly it cannot detect all misbehaviors! It does nothing to secure the routing protocol, for instance. It entails no signing, so there is no protection against spoofing, for example. It was more a first attempt to see what we can do for throughput with a little bit of machinery that doesn't much interfere with the routing protocol itself. Best wishes, Mary _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 20:24:24 2003 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 UAA13449 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:24:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0T1jb405025 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:45:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T1jaJ05022 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:45:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13444 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:23:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T1YMJ03847; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:34:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T1RiJ03627 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:27:44 -0500 Received: from web20509.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA13172 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:06:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030129010932.52363.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [202.184.37.7] by web20509.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:09:32 PST Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:09:32 -0800 (PST) From: Shaiful To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [manet] Re : my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Before ARPANet nobody said that packet switching is feasible ;-) Seriously, AFAIK after doing some background research on QoS, there is no work yet done in actual test bed for QoS network. The first work on QoS ad hoc network is by CEDAR team. The latest work done by Chenxi Zhu for his PhD study. But really there is NO conclusive work done yet, and according to Chenxi Zhu may be it is not worth doing after all for highly mobile network. His paper was published in IEEE INFOCOM 2002. My suggestion is just repeat any test bed experiment from Rice, Texas or CMU, and then add CEDAR or any current proposed QoS support as comparison. It will be a good journal paper candidate. Easily said than done ;-) Good luck, Regards, Shaiful Hashim Universiti Putra Malaysia "Ankur Jain" wrote: Hello everybody, I have some doubt about QoS after doing experiments on the testbed for ad hoc networks. In our experiments, we placed the nodes strategically so that they are on the periphery of the radio range of each other. Then we started the packets transfer and asked the nodes to move about their position. Our results show that the wireless link is so unstable that sometimes 50% of packets get lost. Fifty percent is such a high figure for packet loss. I repeated the experiments many times but the loss percantage varied from 5% to upto 70%. We conducted the expts. in the office environment so there was some interference with the office's wireless LAN and other RF expts running nearby. I wanted to ask that if we can't even ensure connectivity in such a small region, how will we guarantee QoS over any infrastructure-less network. If there is some fixed infrastructure then we can give some assurance of QoS over some no. of hops. But I don't think that we can fully guarantee to provide specified bandwidth in real ad hoc networks - be it a militray application or in emergency situations and the network containing hundreds of nodes. And in case of fairs/sports events, I think the network won't even work with 802.11b due to hidden node / exposed node problem where many nodes are in the radio range of each other. I think right now the definition of QoS over ad hoc network is not clear. Is there any proposal of including QoS in IRTF. Doing QoS tests in simulators won't give the actual scenario. Has anybody done QoS experiments with the actual testbed (with wireless links) for ad hoc networks. I am really anxious to know their results. Please give me some pointers if there are any papers on this. Best Regards Ankur __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 02:53:52 2003 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 CAA12729 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:53:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0T8FCe04526 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:15:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T8FBJ04523 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:15:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12723 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:53:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T7xIJ03134; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:59:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T7qBJ02878 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:52:11 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA12324 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:30:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2679 invoked by uid 417); 29 Jan 2003 07:33:51 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2003 07:33:51 -0000 Received: from ankur ([203.94.198.231]) (AUTH: LOGIN ankurjain@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:33:19 -0700 Message-ID: <00b201c2c769$0cfd1000$e7c65ecb@ankur> Reply-To: "Ankur Jain" From: "Ankur Jain" To: manet@ietf.org References: Subject: Re: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:03:38 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello Everybody, Thanks for giving your inputs about QoS over Manets. I think there is a general agreement that ensuring QoS over a standalone ad hoc network is difficult. This is due to the inherent problems of dynamic topology, unpredictable radio links etc. According to me, it will be better to do research on QoS in ad hoc networks wrt integration between fixed (aka base station ) and infrastructure-less (or Manets) than doing QoS experiments on a stand-alone ad hoc network. Has anybody done QoS expts on the real testbed? I would suggest to WG (or IRTF) to include QoS as one of the news areas for further research. Thanks, Best Regards Ankur -------------------------------------------- ankurjain@softhome.net http://www.geocities.com/ankurjain009/ -------------------------------------------- ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ " When everything seems to be going against you, remember that an airplane takes off against the wind, not with it." ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ ----- Original Message ----- From: Kaustubh Phanse To: Ankur Jain ; Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:54 AM Subject: RE: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Ankur, We have conducted similar experiments (in an indoor environment) as a part of our research. I would like to point out two things here: (1) Yes, there is considerable amount of "unpredictability" in the performance of nodes especially at the periphery or fringe of the radio range. However, its not necessary that this will always be the case in all real-life scenarios. (2) Secondly, this unpredictability "typically" increases considerably in an indoor environment (with lots of walls, metal structures, microwave ovens, etc.) as compared to an outdoor environment. So, what you are looking at is kind of a worst-case scenario. Talking about QoS in ad hoc networks, I agree that one may not be able to "fully" provide any guarantees (bandwidth, delay, etc.). However, as they say: "excellent is the enemy of good." I think the same philosophy can be applied to QoS in ad hoc networks -- just because we cannot have hard guarantess does not make the situation completely hopeless! Our preliminary wireless experiements did include dynamic bandwidth management, and demonstrated its effect using the VIC (video) application. Our results, some other observations, and lessons learnt can be found in the following paper: K. Phanse, L. DaSilva and S. Midkiff, "Extending Policy-Based Management to Ad Hoc Networks," submitted to IEEE Network Magazine, October 2002. Available at: http://www.ee.vt.edu/~kphanse/Adhoc_policy_mgmt.pdf Hope this helps. Best regards, Kaustubh ---------------------------------------------------- Kaustubh S. Phanse kphanse@ee.vt.edu PhD candidate http://www.ee.vt.edu/~kphanse Electrical & Computer Engineering Department Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University ----------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Ankur Jain Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:27 PM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Hello everybody, I have some doubt about QoS after doing experiments on the testbed for ad hoc networks. In our experiments, we placed the nodes strategically so that they are on the periphery of the radio range of each other. Then we started the packets transfer and asked the nodes to move about their position. Our results show that the wireless link is so unstable that sometimes 50% of packets get lost. Fifty percent is such a high figure for packet loss. I repeated the experiments many times but the loss percantage varied from 5% to upto 70%. We conducted the expts. in the office environment so there was some interference with the office's wireless LAN and other RF expts running nearby. I wanted to ask that if we can't even ensure connectivity in such a small region, how will we guarantee QoS over any infrastructure-less network. If there is some fixed infrastructure then we can give some assurance of QoS over some no. of hops. But I don't think that we can fully guarantee to provide specified bandwidth in real ad hoc networks - be it a militray application or in emergency situations and the network containing hundreds of nodes. And in case of fairs/sports events, I think the network won't even work with 802.11b due to hidden node / exposed node problem where many nodes are in the radio range of each other. I think right now the definition of QoS over ad hoc network is not clear. Is there any proposal of including QoS in IRTF. Doing QoS tests in simulators won't give the actual scenario. Has anybody done QoS experiments with the actual testbed (with wireless links) for ad hoc networks. I am really anxious to know their results. Please give me some pointers if there are any papers on this. Best Regards Ankur ----- Original Message ----- From: Rex Buddenberg To: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot Cc: Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 07:31, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > > > But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a > > 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be > > considered an 'overlay network', and not a true > > mobile ad hoc network. > > > > Any real world scenario of any scale will be a mixture of infrastructure > and MANET. I can't imagine a practical standalone MANET of any size. > So yes, there will be a fixed infrastructure -- that the fire > departments use on a daily basis and for both operational and > non-operational traffic. > In the event of a catastrophe (the large forest fire example) a couple > things happen: > - some fixed infrastructure is damaged > - the existing fire department resources may need to extend > connectivity into unplanned places so you have ad hoc buildout. > - the local fire department is augmented with assets that surge into > the area. A lot more ad hot (freudian sic... hoc) buildout. > - as the fire progresses and assets move, the topology of the ad hoc > part of the network will surely change. Similarly, the places where the > ad hoc portions of the network connect to the fixed portions can be > expected to change too. > > > > I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network > > should be deployed (I think). > > If you have any experience with either military or emergency services, > you should have develope antibodies that say: 'the last thing you should > do in the face of a crisis is reorganize'. The order of battle should > be the same as the order of sailing (Nelson). > > You won't have a previously > > installed services, because there won't be what I called > > 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. > > All emergency services outfits I've ever dealt with have previously > installed services that they use daily -- this is a Good Thing since the > crew knows how the stuff works. > > All traffic on the > > network will be the same (from my point of view) in > > terms of priorities. > > Don't agree, but easy to go overboard. There will be urgent traffic and > there will be not so urgent traffic. > But sorting this into more than about 4 bins represents such a > departure from KISS that you get in real trouble. One outfit I'm > working with (government, of course) is looking at 64 levels of priority > since they have 6 bits to work with ... aaack. > These comments are to substantive traffic (I need the next water drop > over here). They are not directed at the network convergence traffic, > which may indeed be single priority. > > > > > Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable > > authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes > > are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision > > an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) > > Take a look at the IETF diff-serv exercise that ended last year. The > hard lessons learned there: > - the QoS control cures may be worse than the disease > - departure from KISS has severe consequences. > Note that the need for authentication assumes the need for QoS control. > - attempts to diddle with the DS byte open DoS attack vectors. > > Second, take a look at the IEPREP working group in IETF. Lotsa cruft in > the archive, but the basics are 1) overprovision the fixed network and > pre-empt the QoS control problem there. 2) Yes, if you're going to > provide _any_ kind of premium service, you're going to need an > authentication system to prevent abuse (by both insiders and > outsiders). > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jan 29 05:41:03 2003 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 FAA15287 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TB2QY14780 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:02:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TB2PJ14777 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:02:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15248 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:40:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TAnLJ14209; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:49:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TAi4J14016 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:44:04 -0500 Received: from unimur.um.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14914 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:22:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from zape.um.es (zape.um.es [155.54.0.102]) by unimur.um.es (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09163 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:25:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from zape.um.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zape.um.es (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21926 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:25:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from anakin (dibulibu.um.es [155.54.1.250]) by zape.um.es (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA21879; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:25:22 +0100 (MET) From: "Pedro M. Ruiz" To: "Ankur Jain" , Cc: Subject: RE: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:24:37 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 In-Reply-To: <00c001c2c704$9885d720$7dc65ecb@ankur> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0TAi4J14017 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Ankur, all, As some people have already commented, offering strict QoS guarantees in a changing topology network is nearly unrealistic. However, applications can help in maintaining a good user-perceived QoS even when in some periods the guarantees are violated. We think that a coupled approach between applications and network-layer QoS mechanisms can certainly offer a good overall QoS. We did such experiments using our extensions to a realtime multimedia application (audio + video) on top of our multicast routing protocol for ad hoc network extensions (MMARP) in a real indoor scenario. The results are in this paper to appear in ICOIN'2003. (http://ants.dif.um.es/staff/pedrom/ruiz-adapt.pdf) We have more measurments which were not included due to the max paper length. So, please do not hesitate to contact us in case you need further information. Best Wishes, Pedro > -----Mensaje original----- > De: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]En nombre de Ankur > Jain > Enviado el: martes, 28 de enero de 2003 20:27 > Para: manet@ietf.org > Asunto: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks > > > Hello everybody, > > I have some doubt about QoS after doing experiments on the testbed for ad > hoc networks. > > In our experiments, we placed the nodes strategically so that they are on > the periphery of the radio range of each other. Then we started > the packets > transfer and asked the nodes to move about their position. Our > results show > that the wireless link is so unstable that sometimes 50% of packets get > lost. Fifty percent is such a high figure for packet loss. I repeated the > experiments many times but the loss percantage varied from 5% to upto 70%. > We conducted the expts. in the office environment so there was some > interference with the office's wireless LAN and other RF expts running > nearby. > > I wanted to ask that if we can't even ensure connectivity in such a small > region, how will we guarantee QoS over any infrastructure-less network. If > there is some fixed infrastructure then we can give some assurance of QoS > over some no. of hops. But I don't think that we can fully guarantee to > provide specified bandwidth in real ad hoc networks - be it a militray > application or in emergency situations and the network containing hundreds > of nodes. And in case of fairs/sports events, I think the network > won't even > work with 802.11b due to hidden node / exposed node problem where > many nodes > are in the radio range of each other. > > I think right now the definition of QoS over ad hoc network is > not clear. Is > there any proposal of including QoS in IRTF. Doing QoS tests in simulators > won't give the actual scenario. Has anybody done QoS experiments with the > actual testbed (with wireless links) for ad hoc networks. I am really > anxious to know their results. Please give me some pointers if > there are any > papers on this. > > Best Regards > Ankur > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rex Buddenberg > To: Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot > Cc: > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:05 PM > Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > > > > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 07:31, Pablo Serrano Yáñez-Mingot wrote: > > > > > But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a > > > 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be > > > considered an 'overlay network', and not a true > > > mobile ad hoc network. > > > > > > > Any real world scenario of any scale will be a mixture of infrastructure > > and MANET. I can't imagine a practical standalone MANET of any size. > > So yes, there will be a fixed infrastructure -- that the fire > > departments use on a daily basis and for both operational and > > non-operational traffic. > > In the event of a catastrophe (the large forest fire example) a couple > > things happen: > > - some fixed infrastructure is damaged > > - the existing fire department resources may need to extend > > connectivity into unplanned places so you have ad hoc buildout. > > - the local fire department is augmented with assets that surge into > > the area. A lot more ad hot (freudian sic... hoc) buildout. > > - as the fire progresses and assets move, the topology of the ad hoc > > part of the network will surely change. Similarly, the places where the > > ad hoc portions of the network connect to the fixed portions can be > > expected to change too. > > > > > > > I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network > > > should be deployed (I think). > > > > If you have any experience with either military or emergency services, > > you should have develope antibodies that say: 'the last thing you should > > do in the face of a crisis is reorganize'. The order of battle should > > be the same as the order of sailing (Nelson). > > > > You won't have a previously > > > installed services, because there won't be what I called > > > 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. > > > > All emergency services outfits I've ever dealt with have previously > > installed services that they use daily -- this is a Good Thing since the > > crew knows how the stuff works. > > > > All traffic on the > > > network will be the same (from my point of view) in > > > terms of priorities. > > > > Don't agree, but easy to go overboard. There will be urgent traffic and > > there will be not so urgent traffic. > > But sorting this into more than about 4 bins represents such a > > departure from KISS that you get in real trouble. One outfit I'm > > working with (government, of course) is looking at 64 levels of priority > > since they have 6 bits to work with ... aaack. > > These comments are to substantive traffic (I need the next water drop > > over here). They are not directed at the network convergence traffic, > > which may indeed be single priority. > > > > > > > > Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable > > > authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes > > > are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision > > > an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) > > > > Take a look at the IETF diff-serv exercise that ended last year. The > > hard lessons learned there: > > - the QoS control cures may be worse than the disease > > - departure from KISS has severe consequences. > > Note that the need for authentication assumes the need for QoS control. > > - attempts to diddle with the DS byte open DoS attack vectors. > > > > Second, take a look at the IEPREP working group in IETF. Lotsa cruft in > > the archive, but the basics are 1) overprovision the fixed network and > > pre-empt the QoS control problem there. 2) Yes, if you're going to > > provide _any_ kind of premium service, you're going to need an > > authentication system to prevent abuse (by both insiders and > > outsiders). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Wed Jan 29 06:33:41 2003 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 GAA16300 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:33:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TBt5V18298 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:55:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TBt5J18295 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:55:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA16289 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:33:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TBRIJ16457; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:27:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TBNVJ16322 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:23:31 -0500 Received: from smtp.uc3m.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA15770 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:01:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id A169F431E3 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:05:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from itserv2.lab.it.uc3m.es (itserv2.lab.it.uc3m.es [163.117.144.121]) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1838799E14 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:05:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from varpa.it.uc3m.es (pablo@varpa.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.253]) by itserv2.lab.it.uc3m.es (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA06935 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:05:06 +0100 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:05:06 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pablo_Serrano_Y=E1=F1ez-Mingot?= Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pablo_Serrano_Y=E1=F1ez-Mingot?= To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] key management In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi all, I think the Master Thesis Key Management in Ad Hoc Networks Klas Fokine LITH-ISY-EX-3322-2002 2002-09-11 is a good starting point also, available at http://www.ep.liu.se/exjobb/isy/2002/3322/exjobb.pdf Pbl On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Wenjing Lou wrote: > Centralized control mechanism (such as CA) is not suitable in a MANET > because of the node mobility and the lack > of infrastructure. I saw two interesting approaches for the key > management in MANET. One is to retain the concept of CA but distribute its > functionality into multiple servers using secret sharing. Papers adopting > this approach include > > L. Zhou, Z. Haas, "Securing ad hoc networks", IEEE networks magazine, > vol.13, no.6, 1999 > J. Kong, P. Zerfos, H. Luo, S. Lu, L. Zhang, "Providing robust and > ubiquitous security support for manet", ICNP'01 > and the one mentioned in Yi's email. > > The other appoach is totally distributed key management similar to that > used in PGP. The paper proposed this approach is > J-P. Hubaux, L. Buttyan, and S. Capkun, "The quest for security in mobile > ad hoc networks", MobiHOC'01 > > > Wenjing > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Seung Yi wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Shweta Bhandare" > > To: ; > > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [manet] key management > > > > > > > Is Manet Key Management centralized or distributed, public key or not, > > > etc. Can anyone give me pointers to find information in this context? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Shweta > > > > > > > > > > We have a extended version of last year's ICNP presentation in a technical report. > > > > Key Management for Heterogeneous Ad Hoc Wireless Networks > > Seung Yi, Robin Kravets > > Poster Presentation, 10th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP 2002) > > Detailed version is available as a technical report UIUCDCS-R-2002-2290 > > > > Should be enough as a starting point. > > > > Regards, > > > > - Seung > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Wed Jan 29 07:22:14 2003 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 HAA17544 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:22:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TChdf21622 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:43:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TChdJ21619 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:43:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17511 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:21:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TCUeJ20283; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:30:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TCPrJ20103 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:25:53 -0500 Received: from luna.tlmat.unican.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16869 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:03:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mizar.tlmat.unican.es (mizar.tlmat.unican.es [193.144.186.38]) by luna.tlmat.unican.es with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.1) id NAA11847; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:47:29 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20030129125834.00b77338@luna.tlmat.unican.es> X-Sender: ramon@luna.tlmat.unican.es X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:06:45 +0100 To: Dave Johnson From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ram=F3n?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_Ag=FCero?= Subject: Re: [manet] dsr and more. Cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030128101708.A75828@maredsous.cs.rice.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0TCPrJ20104 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Dave and all, I have two doubts concerning DSR, I would be grateful to receive hints for any of them: (1) The first question has been already posted on the list before (let me copy and paste it): I've been revising the current version for the DSR protocol, and I have found something which, in my opinion, it should be a mistake. If you look at section 5.3 (Route Reply Option Format) there are 5 pieces of information within it: - Option Type - Option Data Length - The "L" bit - Some Reserved bits - The whole list of addresses belonging to the route However, if you read section 6.2.4 (Originating a Route Reply) you will be able to see that it is assumed that an Identification field is also needed at the DSR Route Reply header, as it says: - The Route Request Identifier MUST be initialized to the Identifier field of the Route Request that this reply is sent in response to. Could anybody tell me whether the Route Reply should include a ID field? (2) The second question concerns the Route Reply option. When the target node transmits a ROUTE_REPLY, does it use a SOURCE_ROUTE option? If so, is it needed to follow the Maintenance phase completely (i.e. with ACK_REQUEST and so on)? Has anybody thought about getting rid of the extra overhead introduced by the SOURCE_ROUTE option by using the route inside the ROUTE_REPLY? Thanks in advance... Any pointer will be welcomed. Ramón At 10:17 28/01/2003 -0600, Dave Johnson wrote: >That is still the current version of the draft. We have been >working on a revised version but have not quite finished it yet. >The new version should be out soon. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 08:52:12 2003 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 IAA19363 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:52:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TEDdr27615 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:13:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TEDdJ27612 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:13:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19339 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TE3hJ26298; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:03:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TDuVJ25978 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:56:31 -0500 Received: from mailserver2.opnet.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19045 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:34:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from wtn11019 (wtn11019.opnet.com [172.16.11.19]) by mailserver2.opnet.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0TDc1E7009698; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:38:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20030129083355.00aca460@mailserver.opnet.com> X-Sender: krao@mailserver.opnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:37:57 -0500 To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ram=F3n?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_Ag=FCero?= From: Kartik Rao Subject: Re: [manet] dsr and more. Cc: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20030129125834.00b77338@luna.tlmat.unican.es> References: <20030128101708.A75828@maredsous.cs.rice.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0TDuVJ25979 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 01:06 PM 1/29/03 +0100, Ramón Agüero wrote: >Dear Dave and all, > >I have two doubts concerning DSR, I would be grateful to receive hints for >any of them: > >(1) The first question has been already posted on the list before (let me >copy and paste it): >I've been revising the current version for the DSR protocol, and I have >found something which, in my opinion, it should be a mistake. If you look >at section 5.3 (Route Reply Option Format) there are 5 pieces of >information within it: >- Option Type >- Option Data Length >- The "L" bit >- Some Reserved bits >- The whole list of addresses belonging to the route >However, if you read section 6.2.4 (Originating a Route Reply) you will be >able to see that it is assumed that an Identification field is also needed >at the DSR Route Reply header, as it says: >- The Route Request Identifier MUST be initialized to the Identifier field >of the Route Request that this reply is sent in response to. >Could anybody tell me whether the Route Reply should include a ID field? You do not need an ID field in the Route Reply. The Request ID is only used at intermediate nodes to determine whether a duplicate route request has arrived at the intermediate node with the same request ID from the same source node. >(2) The second question concerns the Route Reply option. When the target >node transmits a ROUTE_REPLY, does it use a SOURCE_ROUTE option? If so, is >it needed to follow the Maintenance phase completely (i.e. with >ACK_REQUEST and so on)? Has anybody thought about getting rid of the extra >overhead introduced by the SOURCE_ROUTE option by using the route inside >the ROUTE_REPLY? This is ambiguous in the draft and not specified in detail. >Thanks in advance... Any pointer will be welcomed. > >Ramón > >At 10:17 28/01/2003 -0600, Dave Johnson wrote: >>That is still the current version of the draft. We have been >>working on a revised version but have not quite finished it yet. >>The new version should be out soon. > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jan 29 08:52:37 2003 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 IAA19381 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TEE5927670 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:14:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TEE4J27666 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:14:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19358 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:52:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TDxiJ26078; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:59:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TDsBJ25852 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:54:11 -0500 Received: from m1.cs.man.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18994 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from eng001.cs.man.ac.uk by m1.cs.man.ac.uk (8.8.8/AL/MJK-2.0) id NAA28837; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:35:44 GMT Received: (from tapselj0@localhost) by eng001.cs.man.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.9.3) id h0TDbdn09742 for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:37:39 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:37:39 +0000 From: John Tapsell To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030129133739.H6749@eng001.cs.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Subject: [manet] Work in the manet field 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, I'm currently a student, but know a fair amount about manets. I have done some research into them with a company, and setup testbeds etc. Anyway, I was just hoping if you good people could tell me if this is an area that people are hiring in? I ask because the company I worked for has recently laid off most of its staff in this area so I'm unlikely to be re-hired there. It's an area that interests me, but I can switch to studying other, equally interesting, areas if this field is saturated. Sorry if I'm way offtopic - seemed the best place to ask. JohnFlux -- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 08:53:38 2003 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 IAA19421 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:53:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TEF5A27741 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:15:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TEF5J27738 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:15:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19398 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:53:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TE6YJ26418; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:06:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TDuiJ25988 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:56:44 -0500 Received: from memphis.ece.cornell.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19050 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:34:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from photon.ece.cornell.edu (photon.ece.cornell.edu [128.84.81.138]) by memphis.ece.cornell.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h0TDcJK01431 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:38:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:36:11 -0500 (EST) From: Edward Hua X-X-Sender: eyh5@photon.ece.cornell.edu To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [manet] Test 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Test. Discard _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 12:11:38 2003 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 MAA23770 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:11:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0THX9O08719 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:33:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0THX8J08716 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:33:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23763 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:11:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0THCRJ07775; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:12:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TH7CJ07152 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:07:12 -0500 Received: from isrmail.isr.umd.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23274 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from isr.umd.edu (doh.isr.umd.edu [128.8.140.151]) by isrmail.isr.umd.edu (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.2-CR) with ESMTP id AJG96630; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:48:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E3805E7.1020506@isr.umd.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:48:39 -0500 From: Manish Karir User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001" CC: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As I see it, I think there is a strong need for theoretical work that can provide guidelines or rought rules of thumb than can tell us what happens across the whole scale of mobility. You have static networks on one side and highly mobile(what does that even mean) on the other. At what point do things start to break down. Be it QoS, or routing, or even basic packet forwarding. As one goes from a static network to a completely chaotic system, we go from a system where routing can be used to a system where only broadcast will work. If some one has good ideas on how to do this study or has done this study, please enlighten the rest of us. Without that protocols for, routing, QoS, security etc. lack meaning, if you cannot at the same time specify which range of mobility they operate under. Perhaps one of the tasks for the irtf might be to publish a common set of metrics that should be presented for every new protocol. It is not sufficient to simply present a protocol and describe how it works. There should be a checklist that evey proposer of a new protocol should have to fulfill before submitting their work. But ofcourse before we get to that point we first have to figure out what the word "mobility" means...is it random walk?, random waypoint, etc, what speed does it imply??. Without this common set of metrics we can propose protocols well into the next century, and accomplish little. I know there is some work on common metrics, for example control packet overhead seems to have emerged as a "must have" metric in any study. This is probably a good metric, but once again, total meaningless, unless put in the perspective of mobility. the actual metric should be: "control overhead given that our scenario is xxxxx on the mobility scale" Please note I do not mean to criticise anyones work, I'm speaking in generics here. manish Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001 wrote: > Hi, > > Are there any WLAN (IEEE 802.11) card/AP that can support Qos well in MANET? > > I tend to agree with Ankur that MANET cannot gurantee Qos because of the > unreliability (& unpredictability) of the links. In MHO, the best MANET can do > is to provide differentiation of services (i.e. one stream has a higher prority > than another), which may still result in significant packet losses, and still > may not give you the Qos required for a given application (i.e. video). > Usually, there is when the application has to adapt to the network resource > available (i.e. reduce the quality of video). > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 13:51:20 2003 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 NAA26096 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:51:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TJCr915392 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:12:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TJCrJ15389 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:12:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26086 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:50:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TJ1iJ14154; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:01:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TIvbJ13994 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:57:37 -0500 Received: from fridge.docomolabs-usa.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25567 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:35:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Xiaoning He" To: Subject: RE: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:38:15 -0800 Message-ID: <005001c2c7c5$96d45de0$3e6015ac@VAIO> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0051_01C2C782.88B11DE0" In-Reply-To: <00c001c2c704$9885d720$7dc65ecb@ankur> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C2C782.88B11DE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is my 2 cents.=20 I think the answer to this question depends on what kind of scenario you = are talking out, what technology you are using and what goal you want to achieve.=20 For me, ad-hoc is only a term used to emphasize infrastructureless = network. It is independent of moving speed. To one extreme, if all nodes are = fixed, I didn't see why QoS can not be provided. 802 WLAN may not work, but point-to-point wireless such as 802.16 may work very well. To another extreme, if all nodes are moving as fast as they want, that requires = further study and I think that's the case implied in this mailing list and in = your question. Even in your scenario, how you place the nodes, what kind of interference exists around you will definitely affect your result. Furthermore, besides the military usage and emergence usage, there are = still many other scenarios which ad-hoc network can be used. Under those scenarios, 802.11 WLAN is not the best choice.=20 In short, I think QoS for ad-hoc network is something important in the future. But it heavily depends on the assumptions and scenarios. Xiaoning He, Ph.D Research Engineer =20 NTT-DoCoMo USA Labs 181 Metro Drive, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95110 =20 Email: xiaoning@docomolabs-usa.com Phone: +1 (408) 451-4737 Fax: +1 (408) 573-1090 =20 -----Original Message----- From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Ankur Jain Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:27 AM To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Hello everybody, I have some doubt about QoS after doing experiments on the testbed for = ad hoc networks. In our experiments, we placed the nodes strategically so that they are = on the periphery of the radio range of each other. Then we started the = packets transfer and asked the nodes to move about their position. Our results = show that the wireless link is so unstable that sometimes 50% of packets get lost. Fifty percent is such a high figure for packet loss. I repeated = the experiments many times but the loss percantage varied from 5% to upto = 70%. We conducted the expts. in the office environment so there was some interference with the office's wireless LAN and other RF expts running nearby. I wanted to ask that if we can't even ensure connectivity in such a = small region, how will we guarantee QoS over any infrastructure-less network. = If there is some fixed infrastructure then we can give some assurance of = QoS over some no. of hops. But I don't think that we can fully guarantee to provide specified bandwidth in real ad hoc networks - be it a militray application or in emergency situations and the network containing = hundreds of nodes. And in case of fairs/sports events, I think the network won't = even work with 802.11b due to hidden node / exposed node problem where many = nodes are in the radio range of each other. I think right now the definition of QoS over ad hoc network is not = clear. Is there any proposal of including QoS in IRTF. Doing QoS tests in = simulators won't give the actual scenario. Has anybody done QoS experiments with = the actual testbed (with wireless links) for ad hoc networks. I am really anxious to know their results. Please give me some pointers if there are = any papers on this. Best Regards Ankur ----- Original Message ----- From: Rex Buddenberg To: Pablo Serrano Y=E1=F1ez-Mingot Cc: Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks - when and why? > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 07:31, Pablo Serrano Y=E1=F1ez-Mingot wrote: > > > But I don't think 'emergency services' fit into a > > 'QoS provisioning scenario', because it should be > > considered an 'overlay network', and not a true > > mobile ad hoc network. > > > > Any real world scenario of any scale will be a mixture of = infrastructure > and MANET. I can't imagine a practical standalone MANET of any size. > So yes, there will be a fixed infrastructure -- that the fire > departments use on a daily basis and for both operational and > non-operational traffic. > In the event of a catastrophe (the large forest fire example) a couple > things happen: > - some fixed infrastructure is damaged > - the existing fire department resources may need to extend > connectivity into unplanned places so you have ad hoc buildout. > - the local fire department is augmented with assets that surge into > the area. A lot more ad hot (freudian sic... hoc) buildout. > - as the fire progresses and assets move, the topology of the ad hoc > part of the network will surely change. Similarly, the places where = the > ad hoc portions of the network connect to the fixed portions can be > expected to change too. > > > > I mean: in emergency situation, a new ad hoc network > > should be deployed (I think). > > If you have any experience with either military or emergency services, > you should have develope antibodies that say: 'the last thing you = should > do in the face of a crisis is reorganize'. The order of battle should > be the same as the order of sailing (Nelson). > > You won't have a previously > > installed services, because there won't be what I called > > 'multipurpose ad hoc networks'. > > All emergency services outfits I've ever dealt with have previously > installed services that they use daily -- this is a Good Thing since = the > crew knows how the stuff works. > > All traffic on the > > network will be the same (from my point of view) in > > terms of priorities. > > Don't agree, but easy to go overboard. There will be urgent traffic = and > there will be not so urgent traffic. > But sorting this into more than about 4 bins represents such a > departure from KISS that you get in real trouble. One outfit I'm > working with (government, of course) is looking at 64 levels of = priority > since they have 6 bits to work with ... aaack. > These comments are to substantive traffic (I need the next water drop > over here). They are not directed at the network convergence traffic, > which may indeed be single priority. > > > > > Also, in emergency situation you will need a reliable > > authentication system, so as to only authorized nodes > > are given a 'premium services' (this is why I envision > > an overlay network, and not a network with QoS support) > > Take a look at the IETF diff-serv exercise that ended last year. The > hard lessons learned there: > - the QoS control cures may be worse than the disease > - departure from KISS has severe consequences. > Note that the need for authentication assumes the need for QoS = control. > - attempts to diddle with the DS byte open DoS attack vectors. > > Second, take a look at the IEPREP working group in IETF. Lotsa cruft = in > the archive, but the basics are 1) overprovision the fixed network and > pre-empt the QoS control problem there. 2) Yes, if you're going to > provide _any_ kind of premium service, you're going to need an > authentication system to prevent abuse (by both insiders and > outsiders). > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C2C782.88B11DE0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhESAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEGgAMADgAAANMHAQAdAAoAJgAAAAMAKwEB A5AGAKggAAAtAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAMANgAA AAAAHgBwAAEAAAAvAAAAW21hbmV0XSBteSBkb3VidHMgYWJvdXQgUW9TIGluIGFkIGhvYyBuZXR3 b3JrcwAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAcLHYQXaNuNMPRtpSCiTPNJ378nfWwAAAgEdDAEAAAAhAAAAU01U UDpYSUFPTklOR0BET0NPTU9MQUJTLVVTQS5DT00AAAAACwABDgAAAABAAAYOAPSHjMXHwgECAQoO AQAAABgAAAAAAAAATSiNIZVMlUGnBYqr5qr1eMKAAAADABQOAAAAAAsAHw4BAAAAHgAoDgEAAAA9 AAAAMDAwMDAwMDIBeGlhb25pbmdAZG9jb21vbGFicy11c2EuY29tAURvQ29NbyBCdXNpbmVzcyBB Y2NvdW50AAAAAB4AKQ4BAAAAPQAAADAwMDAwMDAyAXhpYW9uaW5nQGRvY29tb2xhYnMtdXNhLmNv bQFEb0NvTW8gQnVzaW5lc3MgQWNjb3VudAAAAAACAQkQAQAAALkbAAC1GwAAsUYAAExaRnW+INRn AwAKAHJjcGcxMjUaMgxgYwBQAQRzdHOCaAVwYmNoMTMPBDcJAA+ADvVoDeAQVmJpywFDC2BuDhAw Mw+wEcX8ZmUB0A5AAfcCpANjAgAjD4AKwHNldALRcHJKcRNBKgqhbm8U8CA2MAHQAdA2EkATIDA0 5xbBAdAWsDR9B20Cgw5QqwRVFJ0xFZw3FqE5FkP/FxIW8BdwCFUHsgKDD6EC8vsUlw+gNBU/FkES MBaQIAAnFrASMCBVfVMHcFN1Gm4VkmYHQAVAPz+hyqch4H0CgzM2HY8en5sfryCyQCD0HRQxNxQu KDIzOCPUIAdtIEN+RSalKEEnTRbgKF8pZXnOch0UDAEUPTE2AFArr/UDc0cJ0WstNS7RLd4Y0Xsv DwOCVAhwLTUY0S3dN4cnETJ/A4IoSGViCXD8dyktNR1xNJ4oTzamBxDfAaAN4DeGI8Et3TgisTlv XQOCQiGhDeAtNTU7vzYXHXE9DzbTVgiQdG5hdQeBZTeFMycRGQ0oJjH/KbAceCm3KDJDPit1RK0t Ft8W8EYvLrZErDBZNC7RSW/3MkRErDPHNBjfNWdErDccvjQdcU/PRE9R4jrLNCPB70yuPMVErD5a ND8hTK9AVPdRPUHuO5A5IswVJQYAIQN0IFcHkHQEkSFfApI0/jddf0B0JjVfRgKAApEI5po7CW8w ZG8TADU1ZZr/ZrFmb2d5ZYRnomYPad9pnddpH2dPZZ9lDiA4b2pwgf9wP3FJZYRxcm/fc69zbXLv +3EfdOQ5DlB4NHmRcbN5kFMCgg8QeWwHkGgJ4HT1AABxAyFsEZEFEAFAA/CwZGN0bAqxAGBzCrBH fNAUwH0SbnVtX/FhiHV0bwBgZGp1DxDxBRBnaHR8MQoBfAAKAfJpAZBwMAOyO5ER9xK4/3vwEDEC shDSAGABMg9xgrGdD6FjCcB8kICjbnCA+YeEQBMSAzBzbmV4FRCfB7AFsADAAnMVsGNzEjDLAzB+ kGR/8Gl2FiAPADkU8G1pENCHMAnwIETXARB+QCGxUArAYQnAgBD4aCBGAiGGZA8gJvCKMZ0DYHcL MH7gAYBzV3yQeHRoQg+wfuAKsIcwbPcSMDkwi9RyjEgQEIu2AYA1jbdijbdyi7EE8GVs/mx8gYuA iyEBQA8gh4AAIP8hoYoxN0CM0JE2CVCRVAyx55FjfQCRVGRnkjaTsJM2+4IgkVR2AzB7z3zffe9+ //+AB5lhEgOAhRLwmtSCD4Mf/4QkmveeJIV1JvCHrIYEQMD3AaB7MIZnNYcKiMAI0BjA/YVxYpcA CYACIIbiewEU4DuWcEkQNw4gMjBAsEh53nAEkH+hMJOGozaiLw4g/6NPpFuJoI/wisAJgKUrhtD/ JxCVr5a/l8+Y35nvgR+cAf8OUJxVDlCc74QfhSantagy/Z+DN6hPiPALYkDAhbGGZ744hwunuofZ DwClQXMCIOehAQ8ABaBtcBYCtfcOMGUqQDlZsCBFAMADEFO7exIqQDFjkxWwZIB2AlHYIHtVpZAV 8HdjhBWx/mcFML5iv3IMQL+Bf9WrJ/ORYA7xYTC9xaRhvlLCUz8PoA4ww0BhMKRTjEE5N/o2w5Y5 w2ASQD8gvBrC5LWkpX0AsXKTwKIANWEw/8cCjODHYQMwq7GKwKvgkiHxAYBuYmoAYAnwhzAQMJpc FfB4C2ACQG95CfD6XIWwcA8wACALkBXwiMG/kiCsYADhAjACYACAYg9gb8nBrGGP0AIQcqLhzPFt 2w8wrcBlnEAFsHrJkpOwd8cCC4GTsGjMoypAAUFn/nbPOc3xrjALgCcAJQDPsrnQtTk4I8DPAs3w d9FD/dJ0asqRAHALMMmRexClQKUOUHYIkHdrC4BkPyB/1HIE8AdAm3EBQA4AlLNlN63A1dUCEG+u YKxgbHn+dL7wC4DN0Mjx12euUADA/62ArGDJwcwQrlCtwQkyrfD/j+ACUAdAC5DacQJR1MGrIP/X cNVhq+ACYIrR12ECUQAg95RhzBA3QGvNEc3QFfDc8f53i+AJMoWQgBCtkLLiC4BXj9LaoamRZgiQ bIhBZPfaIaugi+BwITCr4KxBBzD/3OekUgNg1xDD9gMxFQIU8P2r4GSrEoWhAUDJYdlwBJB/zdDj IuOSsuIioOMFiJRj/94R4zGkWg8AyPO/4RWxAID5BZBsdoww6CEOcIYg6CLfAZAAIOiy1MEJ8HQB weghHxTAEhC/4gIwhcBhIC7/vyXoRQ5Q6NLLUek/6k/rX//okA+wrQAFge0f7i/vP+iQvyPArQDb oOzv8b/yxSnrrO8/IPCP9X/ypWI3AAKR9q//6GMisPRP+R/6L/s/6IEnEP/8kukf/f//D/cdOTD8 nwIv/wM/BE/ogWEwAS8GzwffCOX/FcGToNaAtxOqr6u/rM+t3/9/tw3SFNGkea+PgWyx8rGv/7K/ s81jwZwhtzCKoMSZmiCfFr8VUbE0pRDkUSBpOfA4bXkgQLCP0A1Acy54IA0KE2IeFhsvHDlJviCL gKWBING40C4Ac6mwb1UgEYAg0jnwcWVgewBpXYmwIIhApUDf8SAi0XfPSfBgMNSyI3BmII/BQiD7 EhAiAHlE0CFwHQGRAdSx8/KARNB0LCOkX4CccNlBf96AHXAlFtoQJdLToSOkZ/ZvoQElEncuACaR IgDQEPucUL4wZR4AY7IZ/7zAHiz/Kn8azx+/iaBVIDnQJkARsPotzfBjHSKJsNdgIXAmof+GICfR ZJAh4ofgLj8cORCR9eDweh0Rbj9AEEASAOzA/nRPAI/gQlA58IWg14DQsPprHgBJYDAdMQtSIyIL gX8kQlnw1HDycbqRZJAeAFS/IgCJsLjQhbFkgDAyaSRgv99BNdBJcUEQJVLfkHhkkO8mQCDAh0DL 0CdgMLuguNDjI7AdcFFvUx2gQaHMgP1gMGK40GJQN9GIQDhxz5ChYoBXTEFOHVBhHXC3PLI2EiZA YhFwNCBvtzC0dC0RgC0/cyOgaTV13nPswImAEEA9si6mMT5S/TYSIJDRQgGP4TiD4RDXEP/kQTkE Mn8cOTJvHCo5fx0B/zfFQUERQHsAQTIhQUIBKXH/JkCLgCPRZIAicEBxSXFPAPNDg3sAdWQxQSQh IMjKEP4nSfM8YbuhYsDXUFxg42D/tzEiI7zyJdIPIEmyJCG3Me8lEVUgInYeAEWHgLpgUFb/JIYm QNKBJQMOMY/QITM6E/8mRSQGP5FjYJtgZIDe4TkB/0/ROlImECQhKSO9EA7wzcL7Rh8cV2ZXrxw5 tzCvII/g/TFBZptgD9BQdEthiMEeAP5GS7RI8GSAPxF7QD1hTZT/h/APIArRHXDaEIkwIWLjYP85 UccgVcNfE0qiHPIlUiKh+znhvPBuHXBDdCSGOlAjsP+cYTBmNeU8YzzxMdIeAL6g/4hAIdHN8Luh YncmQEFzn9D/PgMdMTyyIUJdwYjgnHA/gH+P0B4HLM8ri2lfLd9aL0n/umDScdyAOwIg5DwyzPFj aP9srxw5ZAQdMbrQMDAg4vKA/05BbrEpck7DOpERcDVhHgD+Qj9BryBS0NZQ1HAxMSMJ/yFDh8AR EL+gIsE6USQhYnf/65BrTyufaxean4CBzIA9IX8kUHj+hrA0QJMgpGq/QmKIa21rCsMgX029AXpB EXFTEiDG4HCvHEhYH+EAibAl0hzgJkBQaC5mRB6fgX8gUl3Q1lByfUERRRUA17G6sIOvhL8gf3pv e398j32fbC+H76lATgBUVC1Eb0NvTUEpwFVTQSBMoUBzy4bvjn8gvYEgTeLg4fDcIEQSEKbQZoBT S0AmsPogjYAwiS+KP4tPfa8UFmuRTxxIU2RxSruRZoBD/5BgxODD8ZDPme+JD5WPlph/GEf8cJc/ jN+crxxIvOM69iBWIIK0QMmRu2CpcJCR+i1fES67UZwvpG+DUKgfLxw5zfC1gKXQK2bwKDRJ4lAp ILywMS22gDP+N55vn3+Wv5fPmN+qjy/gXGF4pdCeQKwHNazgLf0VIDmcH7Jfnj+vv34vfzWvyWF/ /7WvtrYtvYJP0MP/KPGTMHcAXzG9g+ODL+Dh8G5tpdBhweLgLRGwXoBuYkAqEHRmLtCw8oBbG09C EYA6v+/A8V0gT6lkgEJlNEBsJGBPJGC2QSEQUKFKDlG/JFMLgfWzsFQigWQ+YGaAxEARAHle0jI4 ZoAUsBUwkuAx6DoyN8PQTb8kQyC/xe/Al78ku8+aWnXnwOMxs7B/wTE14cLwHWGmgMsQVlJivyYR PCMOYRGwUtFjx3O3v/+4zxQkeg/Or8+/sZ8cDt9R7zJAQnLMwExQLB4v1I8gSP80QJPActPMNMyp F5Axgcwx/yXS48A4QBIQMDAd0XZ2JrB/IqA88Eygb8TXj9ifzasu/9cf3u9t6VCS3DkmQT0BU3L/ MgFT1kwRE5CUML4AZGDWMP8dcHLgSrRKEyVSItDhv+LP/yEz3FIQkEKCJFESUOj/qwn/X1ATkDtA KcATkBUA6DEkYP+GAEERQ3M4gUOQI5FhQgrh++WVEABjuqAd4Oh/7G8g0P3uEXNVkSgzEEC6oOWq KbH/SPFfUczDIUFAcD9heUBRFP5PXEdA0VLh8R/yL+dnQFjvEsFylSfQCrJiNZBKtHLj49yBOlA1 MCUkQvClKMD/yDD3//kPT7Bi4FzBL+BH4P50HXDcUR2ycqNBA1LQEiH9OqFnNWFvs/Ch/w8cOfDR /wCyHfEgwDVwOEDmkeWj/p//BI/cK2HD/RQ/MiFCBeIBg/spcV8ydiTB3bK/kbRw/ZDtKbF1d0Ap wDf9gOE2B5/tHDlXTdEi0GQ1MeWV3DHfHeJ0JSRQOrBV4m51sFaQ/m7ckuc0HPIpYHLEDf8PD/9V PFcwSsARyU2BQGc+EkyC+UN0UkYRJEsAVrCC0hRf5xVvNdHhgGJ54T8bf9kp/yli3bAeb7aKKbL0 IEq0R+H/5SFkYTuBKiFkgFJgQPBg8f8QUXBwW/CTsF6wxjDNUQJF/nNPQNYwHf8hT0sB5sB2gP9S xFcz5SEDIB3AIFJfUDwyr/VR87IlYjTaLTWdZiZ//yePYLVytTqkNK12ou+TZGL/5sDZ9nby7hFT keuBPDEtT38uXyq02iM8sGjA64FloHD/BhF1EjshdoA7gUzkNH/5fv8x9Uug5wIp6CJwNA85bwOg 31aQdbB2AFIwBoBjR+BOgvZiTIFXMGQXcc1RVbC+MX/Njb1wZJJ1UQKQXoPtsHn3PG89f0igcE5h 5uBREhlw/0NAzVFftuchXrDGAHdYU8PfY/Z2gHPQWzHcAWhWsVWw/3ZQQv9ED+ty5gNowMPgTqO3 5uBlweuBZrsQeTAvPxD/brFWYCPy5OJvBkfaZBAjtv9Jz0rfUAFRLyf6T/EXYmak3mLbwMVQDSJj IGR2AGSA+eYCIC8JQmWxGWBWo69R//xBDOBjEBOSYcPmA1C/U6//6AN0Je2/7scdj1oP2ThvJP29 4Wh/4GeQKUB2snYAAwC/gtBFlDOzKrXNm2dWY/xQ/14gBiFZX19fL1YKIq9R9lHvvjHrgc1QZLB1 XGDcAc0V8ElSVEYBAI/QxGFlz/+2mGlU3WIKoCWCc4D3YPyg/0hQZT9rH1LCUDIyY3azK+H3vjF3 9gEASBPhCiHWwjfyfypkCVoXVm3fbu9w5t1mKHsXU/q7c6xw3eTgbDfRYf8M4ECCO3B0n3WvKwGl 8OQQvfTza2Fl9iH3NQEAUGTB/00hMmPaQdojTfAWg2zh65H/Z4RnpHsffC8DoQuR3NKCf/8hu4TQ 4S+E37aYw0DmYBnQ/+awhyBJr4hPCSHD44bsjT//hx+LH704w6C97b10jv+QD3u/dYnQeDeRVlLd oMEBPLsKwFZSQKFABhC+IHYdYO1CcT6tH64hNKGQroTGkP41k9ChBpjx0k+iz5NvtpjvnJSeIra2 x8JQ/DEigMTgB5uw89AigFnh8WV67C1NGrFkgTyOsJ/RwJDjAPAQkDNtLhjAl62aj6fTX5yvtphD Y7OwPMgMb5empX/KWsTzTRBhxZs398Z4mZB/IE2of6mPyviJ0PfLeCqDzWItY4itjwT6QbLPWGHN YbrBWGB5P44frU9rnW+efj7DAlP8oMZ0LTAwMS0ynHD8oTA3uDozMU6wn7+gyHc+oP0GsDq1n7av uNC8773/uNHzuOA3ryAnRknWkBKgAcD8cycC8SMRAeAigb8vwD/9wUMnaXI+k5vQ3PDb8nFm/idO sN2g5uB9kEID97FtYP8/kXSPxa/BNBBRm9EW4fPx/UzgJyrC5WBY8eDEyLHz0n9kcgKQMRHKH8sv wTT1QGL+ac//ABoy4UDrDe/Sz8Ez/9Uf1i/XX9hvuLNMkOfwQIP/SEHJ0XFm63IKInFgJkD6kvcp gUHxQlJ4MVNooyt62b+X2s+40fPSTRkQRVQBAf834COUbUAMAEzQ3rJoEHDxf+bS79KrIYYAcuHj E913aVx6ZdUP4Y+4wlMigHn/WUCsIBN13mcwXwMykVH6J78DAOBv6B+4s1kwtVF0c7T/ySKw0sHg SNA7cT+wm9BHdP95EvWgVRE3UBbgRYNAoklgz+1P7l+40WFgbi3yekKx7xIi5x/0b7jCSRG0TlPd c98jgfwg3/E3UGGxKAsDtWB/XNF5EYmS7QIJQXqARUBl/3jw+oF9gP0R9z/4T7jROGL+ZwqgIvBF MBcAvN/+77jC/0HQMA8xFy/RqzDkIQyAAR//Ai8DMxD0L9DywEkR/IPvmN9cMAY/X9lZQH2AcsOx WLH/zeIQwiKAc1AQsPNPCp+4s/8kvSJxSVBFQPGgHRB3kBER+wwiE0F5fYAAkX/BY1WWcP9CgMHw waD3Lw6PB9iGAUCh8wkO8XJ1Z+/yBAF3wzMB/7BQfaEi8iRhXNHEQhPPFN/rAAOBc2HjYUEWYUIw 0fDXgaJjYkIwKCtwZWkROxH/m9D3EB9AeXJ48BM/Gt8CrPdyEezGPoJn/DFXUPGBIN//X9nxsRj1 0fB/wOnTPDFN8P2GAGdyoEvxcLNjYyBvJP//uNHvsifWT5feYhmxeEByoPebgVzB42FTbUBCgLVg O3D/JvQRlVhkdG8pn+J1Y2RN8v9HQytdD9VV8uzEA/IyRzsC/8oPMH+4s3NS5OAMxC0EPDH/cdA2 Dzcf2Z86vzvPPN/BB/9ggAOg8aCnUEYfRYPOgT6v/SVbZWGAY1w+T0N/wUPJl9/vgoYA6aB3kWCF KTm/Rr//Ph9K3/klgRASOFjhc1TDEf/qMlURfmBdkt7heKDlYKvR/3khws/pwEw/TU+40RIyyZX/ EnNZMH/AhgA4cGfB8sBycf+n4BlGq0CnUHAw+4OJoQAz/1UpUu9T/+9iDQBBMezDEbH/+kVzkPFi 8XH8MKgx8aDm4don42FUYbF5IGRaLwsq51oAJ+HxQHR03iFZX19//7h33qH5spJAA6Ei1V8BYPRn kkBRAWlBKE54QAOAbt9J32MfS/9oH7iVWRJBcAT/EnTHUfnwfXJ6/2p/wSWjYf/lYOpwBAFSV8jX 6fVsI96hf7Pg7JHjknBCbY9un8bEbfl+0WlwDACAcH9xeV1egP9zf3SPaW94z9u06nFRv4SB58Gg xAEFMEknf8H58Xpg/1Yw5aC8YRiyEnNs73qPwKv/b/8ZRfmxT2DJIvDk7ENdhP3e0Ec5kOLwXsDH 80EwUAFfL1+Bfw91/DBEsGv1sHf/AIGKIGSUQiD24NyCs5B3z/+Ib3nvjI+4pHxT9rXwgoc//47P wRYry2R6HnEDkN7gT2D/J3AaEfpCw5BEoP1Akd+p+Z9BMJFvl4/BQ7ywcm0ys//HYPLQ3UDywCQQ i5+Zz42/+51fuKREbCMFgPwwJuEf0PvPANxQc09gDPG8QPCAzZH78iC1YGRelOopGcL6IZCG//M/ n58cR+opzuISAaRsnG//po+4wsGSA4AyYQjRhYTEUt8ds+xxsOHyIMGhNPEwguH/3DF/8cNg8BIs kKtAxI+rD8fvSd8ylXNLSVPHQOxz3xIyOVDEItw0+vF1sL+d+b+68C1SuQDfUX3jfkFtsE/ftg/p QSvyCMIYoyiikM2R3m7v8kKQ+lH9gXLDYP1A2/FxniBvuuPskTauwN4g/1ZRm3qAj7lv6TKG109g EnN+Nq7RGTINACv18kEfQmH9xABj1P/AL+kjXsHJMTPA3m3v9BzhONIskGLlUhAx/2SBkJVJUQyk K5MNMBiQ7JD/fsL7AcRvxX/pQbuiKHDqEf9nIF6jT2DHoqiyHsD8MDiT/+yQy3+d+TL+u7FR8si3 Ut//0D+6c9PyDFNBMFYwBAHeof2G0WfeIb62xF/Uf56P2O//QDXaT9tfQGN8YAOAQpBBP/9CQxIj 6lMMo+SQLLEe0Lch/9yv3b9AY3Fg+bFW0fqh4KJ/ojD8UHygQpASASLSoqFuf/ER5NKb8V5ghlD1 sFYwc2/ib+N/5IQW8WfIkfCiJ9t/8S2wdZWgUlYn+1JdhP8u8E9gSWBSAFKAhtBsIOgv/+k/xoHu bzEM34C7ohEgDIJ/RWNCkSYRqLJswCvIGMFR3m+zsCyQAMCssSnt//Dv59yP9o/GZGFrbKK9Mr2i YQgySUVURs7hixAt91JSDRF8wGMX0K3zofHWcf+GUFhjSRD4EF6U99/478aB/xlwXxC+ASPwMpK3 MP6wEVL9p9M6/n//jwfn9NIzwbUh/ahgYyyhDERyclGA/KRcRP8ewFJQoiD+bwN/FdSyn7Oh7xlw EeF+osbybgiP9xlSULxxddKinF8NL8ZjTh5A9/y1K4T9UWZRgeTdGPHrsP9XQxIZBSkO/xAPInVh cHyg5nDCxB7AZGRhkVAzXGLyRLOwYnkRcVaB34ChAP+zsGFhxCGWcDQBBsEVvxbPt/evHN/GVFNx QGwgZCbx8/o/+0FQUiJAuqehcIBA7nDfYvtSt1FM87BmMF0x/4sAtIIePx9Pp6TOYSYwyJGvobRc YmFQhtBjx4QxvOD/u6J/8Lug7aM0afQGpV8l7/vGVH/xLRhiBN8pwbchlaDrp9O3UTK84Flw8vuw tBLuJ+qilgGtAW8rvyzPLdPTKeFWMCBfT0FfifDWYf+bhOuLQpAxTeFlJP8zP/Hjf+Tv5fEYsn/y pJKuYHFyKP8aIGFA87A43x15UGCC4TTB/7ywK389/8zmoeA/lGcvQS//3E9D7x2/Ri9E30gvRv9K b+9Lf0yPTZ+QEF9RD1IfUur/Tr9Pz8aB1iArAQYxZlRmYG9YgFP/VQ9WFkCcMH3wLh9eAVdvWH8A kmFwcHM6SC8vd11gMS5aFi/7VqJWQS9XIt9wFMBeMSsB/1qVX69gv2FWWw9N+VLvZX//Uy9ij03M Vk9XX2hvaXVrL39N+VoPbU8+uVz/Xg9fHn3Ae1xjZjBcguG8sAEZADExOTUzMDMONXUAAMF1gzQ3 MTJMNjJOgHR2fQB4AAAAAB4AQhABAAAAJwAAADwwMGMwMDFjMmM3MDQkOTg4NWQ3MjAkN2RjNjVl Y2JAYW5rdXI+AAADAJIQAQAAAAMA3j+vbwAAAwACWQAAFgADAAlZAwAAAAMAQGUAAAAACwATgAgg BgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAAAAADAEiACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABShQAAG5cB AAMAT4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAGFAAAAAAAAQABQgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAA YIUAAABAIw5DAAAAAwBcgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAAeAG6ACCAGAAAAAADA AAAAAAAARgAAAABUhQAAAQAAAAUAAAAxMC4wAAAAAAsAb4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAaF AAAAAAAACwBzgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAADoUAAAAAAAADAHaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA RgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAAsAi4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAIKFAAABAAAAAgH4DwEAAAAQAAAA TSiNIZVMlUGnBYqr5qr1eAIB+g8BAAAAEAAAAE0ojSGVTJVBpwWKq+aq9XgCAfsPAQAAAEsAAAAA AAAAOKG7EAXlEBqhuwgAKypWwgAAbXNwc3QuZGxsAAAAAABOSVRB+b+4AQCqADfZbgAAAEQ6XEVt YWlsc1xPdXRsb29rLnBzdAAAAwD+DwUAAAADAA00/TcCAAIBFDQBAAAAEAAAAE5JVEH5v7gBAKoA N9luAAACAX8AAQAAADEAAAAwMDAwMDAwMDREMjg4RDIxOTU0Qzk1NDFBNzA1OEFBQkU2QUFGNTc4 QTQ5ODQ3MDAAAAAAAwAGEJ6Q/8MDAAcQAhYAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABI RVJFSVNNWTJDRU5UU0lUSElOS1RIRUFOU1dFUlRPVEhJU1FVRVNUSU9OREVQRU5EU09OV0hBVEtJ TkRPRlNDRU5BUklPWU9VQVJFVEFMS0lOR09VVCxXSEFUVEVDSE5PTE9HAAAAAC7b ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C2C782.88B11DE0-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 10:37:46 2003 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 KAA01516 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0UFeoo09452 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:40:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFeoJ09449 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:40:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01508 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:37:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFK1J07559; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:20:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFB2J04765 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:11:02 -0500 Received: from web40410.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA00541 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:07:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030130151058.69432.qmail@web40410.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [193.95.76.208] by web40410.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:10:58 CET Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:10:58 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?real=20no=20dream?= To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [manet] about clustering in ad hoc networks !! very important 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ok, is there any papers which deals about - convergence (in time , ...) for clustering algorithmes - complexity in time , message, -scalability,efficiency,performance -metrics for clustering algorithmes -and also clustering & routing in ad hoc networks thanks in advance ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 11:51:46 2003 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 LAA03991 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:51:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0UGsqF14240 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:54:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UGsqJ14237 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:54:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03983 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:51:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UGYHJ12613; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:34:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UGQ8J12279 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:26:08 -0500 Received: from control.csl.uiuc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02946 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:22:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from routh.csl.uiuc.edu (routh.csl.uiuc.edu [130.126.138.54]) by control.csl.uiuc.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0UGPVf5003609; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:25:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (kawadia@localhost) by routh.csl.uiuc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UGPKl26796; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:25:20 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: routh.csl.uiuc.edu: kawadia owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:25:20 -0600 (CST) From: Vikas Kawadia X-X-Sender: kawadia@routh.csl.uiuc.edu To: manet@ietf.org cc: real no dream Subject: Re: [manet] about clustering in ad hoc networks !! very important In-Reply-To: <20030130151058.69432.qmail@web40410.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT We have designed and implemented protocols for clustering, routing and power control in ad hoc networks. The following papers might be of interest to you. * Power Control and Clustering in Ad Hoc Networks, To be presented at IEEE INFOCOM 2003. * Power Control in Ad Hoc Networks : Theory, Architecture, Algorithm and Implementation of the COMPOW protocol. European Wireless Conference, 2002, Florence, Italy. They can be downloaded from this link http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~kawadia/acads.html The software for the Linux 2.4.18 is available here: http://www.uiuc.edu/~kawadia/txpower.html Thanks Vikas On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, real no dream wrote: ->ok, ->is there any papers which deals about -> ->- convergence (in time , ...) for clustering ->algorithmes -> ->- complexity in time , message, -> ->-scalability,efficiency,performance -> ->-metrics for clustering algorithmes -> ->-and also clustering & routing in ad hoc networks -> ->thanks in advance -> -> -> -> -> ->___________________________________________________________ ->Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! ->Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ->_______________________________________________ ->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 Jan 30 15:11:56 2003 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 PAA09181 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:11:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0UKF5U26668 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:15:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UKF5J26665 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:15:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09173 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:11:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UJvsJ25174; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:57:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UJooJ24969 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:50:50 -0500 Received: from mail.flarion.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08704 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:47:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by rrmail01.lab.flarion.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:50:38 -0500 Message-ID: <748C6D0A58C0F94CA63C198B6674697AC4246A@ftmail.lab.flarion.com> From: Scott Corson To: "'Manish Karir'" , "'Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001'" Cc: "'manet@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [manet] my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:50:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > If some one has good ideas on how to do this study or has done this > study, please enlighten the rest of us. I have some ideas... See below. > Perhaps one of the tasks for the irtf might be to publish a > common set > of metrics that should be presented for every new protocol. > It is not > sufficient to simply present a protocol and describe how it works. > There should be a checklist that evey proposer of a new > protocol should > have to fulfill before submitting their work. One of the near-term goals of the IRTF group will be to specify just what it is we are looking for in a protocol, and how its performance should be quantified. > > I know there is some work on common metrics, for example > control packet > overhead seems to have emerged as a "must have" metric in any study. > This is probably a good metric, but once again, total meaningless, > unless put in the perspective of mobility. the actual metric > should be: > "control overhead given that our scenario is xxxxx on the > mobility scale" To study a protocol, a set of protocol-independent "black box" criteria are necessary. For example, I don't care what the protocol is, but I do care how my data traffic is delivered (xput, latency, possibly other metrics). At this level of analysis, you don't care *how* a protocol does what it does. You only measure *what* is does; i.e. the effectiveness of data routing based on some set of criteria. These need to be defined, along with test cases, etc. Beyond that, one can delve into various levels of "white box" testing on a protocol class or individual protocol basis. For example, certain performance criteria may be valid for "proactive" protocols (e.g. HELLO protocol overhead), but not for reactive and vice versa. Other criteria may only apply to a given protocol. I think control packet overhead as a metric in isolation is relatively useless. It says little about the effectiveness of routing (the ultimate black box measure). It is meaningful only upon close inspection of what is happening with a given protocol, to understand its inner workings, to improve it, etc. Once we nail down the set of this year's mtg dates, I'll post the IRTF webpage, the mailing list and a lot of this kind of discussion is welcome there. -Scott _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 19:40:01 2003 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 TAA14696 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:40:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0V0hFq09309 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:43:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V0hFJ09306 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:43:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14659 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:39:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V0WnJ08206; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:32:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V0TiJ08136 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:29:44 -0500 Received: from web20507.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA14330 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:25:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030131002930.78223.qmail@web20507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [202.184.37.7] by web20507.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:29:30 PST Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:29:30 -0800 (PST) From: Shaiful To: manet@ietf.org Cc: xiaoning@docomolabs-usa.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [manet] RE: my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Forgive me for my ignorance of 802.16. But do you have any support for your statement that 802.16 works much better than 802.11 for point-to-point connection? This is just like saying PPP is better than ethernet over cross-cable. Or TCP/IP is worst than specialised protocol for intranet communication. It just doesn't make sense to me. Can you enlighten us about this matter. Thanks, Regards, Shaiful xiaoning wrote: For me, ad-hoc is only a term used to emphasize infrastructureless network. It is independent of moving speed. To one extreme, if all nodes are fixed, I didn't see why QoS can not be provided. 802 WLAN may not work, but point-to-point wireless such as 802.16 may work very well. To another extreme, if all nodes are moving as fast as they want, that requires further study and I think that's the case implied in this mailing list and in your question. Even in your scenario, how you place the nodes, what kind of interference exists around you will definitely affect your result. Furthermore, besides the military usage and emergence usage, there are still many other scenarios which ad-hoc network can be used. Under those scenarios, 802.11 WLAN is not the best choice. In short, I think QoS for ad-hoc network is something important in the future. But it heavily depends on the assumptions and scenarios. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 19:40:50 2003 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 TAA14733 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:40:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0V0i4m09381 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:44:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V0i4J09378 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:44:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14703 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:40:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V0Y8J08247; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:34:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V0XVJ08222 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:33:31 -0500 Received: from fridge.docomolabs-usa.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14347 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:29:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Xiaoning He" To: "'Shaiful'" , Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:32:30 -0800 Message-ID: <002b01c2c8c0$3cf9b8f0$546015ac@VAIO> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20030131002930.78223.qmail@web20507.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] RE: my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am sorry I didn't make my comment clear enough. My point is that the test results are technology and network setup specific. In general, I believe the QoS is something we have to do for the ad-hoc. Xiaoning He, Ph.D Research Engineer NTT-DoCoMo USA Labs 181 Metro Drive, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95110 Email: xiaoning@docomolabs-usa.com Phone: +1 (408) 451-4737 Fax: +1 (408) 573-1090 -----Original Message----- From: Shaiful [mailto:shaifuljahari@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:30 PM To: manet@ietf.org Cc: xiaoning@docomolabs-usa.com Subject: RE: my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Hi, Forgive me for my ignorance of 802.16. But do you have any support for your statement that 802.16 works much better than 802.11 for point-to-point connection? This is just like saying PPP is better than ethernet over cross-cable. Or TCP/IP is worst than specialised protocol for intranet communication. It just doesn't make sense to me. Can you enlighten us about this matter. Thanks, Regards, Shaiful xiaoning wrote: For me, ad-hoc is only a term used to emphasize infrastructureless network. It is independent of moving speed. To one extreme, if all nodes are fixed, I didn't see why QoS can not be provided. 802 WLAN may not work, but point-to-point wireless such as 802.16 may work very well. To another extreme, if all nodes are moving as fast as they want, that requires further study and I think that's the case implied in this mailing list and in your question. Even in your scenario, how you place the nodes, what kind of interference exists around you will definitely affect your result. Furthermore, besides the military usage and emergence usage, there are still many other scenarios which ad-hoc network can be used. Under those scenarios, 802.11 WLAN is not the best choice. In short, I think QoS for ad-hoc network is something important in the future. But it heavily depends on the assumptions and scenarios. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 19:42:03 2003 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 TAA14794 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:42:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0V0jIR09504 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:45:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V0jHJ09501 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:45:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14782 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:41:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V0ZCJ08320; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:35:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V0YkJ08281 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:34:46 -0500 Received: from fridge.docomolabs-usa.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14389 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:31:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Xiaoning He" To: "'Shaiful'" , Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:33:42 -0800 Message-ID: <002c01c2c8c0$69735f80$546015ac@VAIO> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20030131002930.78223.qmail@web20507.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] RE: my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That's also the why I use "May" in my previous email. Xiaoning He, Ph.D Research Engineer NTT-DoCoMo USA Labs 181 Metro Drive, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95110 Email: xiaoning@docomolabs-usa.com Phone: +1 (408) 451-4737 Fax: +1 (408) 573-1090 -----Original Message----- From: Shaiful [mailto:shaifuljahari@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:30 PM To: manet@ietf.org Cc: xiaoning@docomolabs-usa.com Subject: RE: my doubts about QoS in ad hoc networks Hi, Forgive me for my ignorance of 802.16. But do you have any support for your statement that 802.16 works much better than 802.11 for point-to-point connection? This is just like saying PPP is better than ethernet over cross-cable. Or TCP/IP is worst than specialised protocol for intranet communication. It just doesn't make sense to me. Can you enlighten us about this matter. Thanks, Regards, Shaiful xiaoning wrote: For me, ad-hoc is only a term used to emphasize infrastructureless network. It is independent of moving speed. To one extreme, if all nodes are fixed, I didn't see why QoS can not be provided. 802 WLAN may not work, but point-to-point wireless such as 802.16 may work very well. To another extreme, if all nodes are moving as fast as they want, that requires further study and I think that's the case implied in this mailing list and in your question. Even in your scenario, how you place the nodes, what kind of interference exists around you will definitely affect your result. Furthermore, besides the military usage and emergence usage, there are still many other scenarios which ad-hoc network can be used. Under those scenarios, 802.11 WLAN is not the best choice. In short, I think QoS for ad-hoc network is something important in the future. But it heavily depends on the assumptions and scenarios. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 01:46:42 2003 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 BAA20364 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:46:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0V6o4d26868 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:50:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V6o4J26865 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:50:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20356 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:46:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V6etJ26599; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:40:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V6cFJ26494 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:38:15 -0500 Received: from exstudent9.city.unisa.edu.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20130 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:34:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by exstudent9.city.unisa.edu.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:06:25 +1030 Message-ID: From: "Liaw, Yong Shyang - LIAYS001" To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Buffer size in Wireless LAN Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:08:46 +1030 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, What shall be the buffer size for wireless LAN (802.11) Mac layer? I have seen that it has been set to 4MByte in the DSR model in Opnet. Is this a reasonable value (in WLAN network card)? Thank in advance. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 05:51:23 2003 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 FAA03084 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:51:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VAspp17578 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:54:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VAspJ17575 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:54:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03077 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:50:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VAieJ17296; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:44:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VAcUJ17129 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:38:30 -0500 Received: from marfik.upv.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA02923 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:34:29 -0500 (EST) From: calafate@disca.upv.es Received: from pop.upv.es (maia.cc.upv.es [158.42.4.11]) by marfik.upv.es (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VAc7k24248 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:38:07 +0100 Received: from smtp2.upv.es (smtp2.cc.upv.es [158.42.250.31]) by pop.upv.es (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0VAcAA08593 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:38:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from nao.disca.upv.es (nao.disca.upv.es [158.42.53.70]) by smtp2.upv.es (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0VAcAV05580 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:38:10 +0100 Received: by nao.disca.upv.es (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 30) id 7EAE21FE92; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:36:08 +0100 (CET) To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <1044009368.3e3a519878bad@nao.disca.upv.es> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:36:08 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-MOQ1044009368649427ca7e46218a0bc9bff12af99112" User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.3 X-Originating-IP: 158.42.180.53 Subject: [manet] Error simulating with AODV, DSR and TORA 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This message is in MIME format. ---MOQ1044009368649427ca7e46218a0bc9bff12af99112 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, I have sent a possible bug report to the NS mailing list, but since no one was able to give me a reply, perhaps someone in this mailing list is interested. Results of dozens of simulations using AODV, DSR and TORA in ns2.1b9a (2.1b8 too) show that these protocols do not behave correctly when there are 802.11 broken links. When looking at the overall results of simulations with many nodes, the effect I describe is not evident. It is necessary to look at a single flow to see that nodes fail to quickly detect broken links, making the re-routing process last too long. This effect does not exist when using other protocols like OLSR or Hello-driven AODV since they do not use link-layer info. The files I attach show this problem clearly in a very simple scenario Please help! Best regards, _________________________________________________ Carlos Miguel Tavares de Araújo Cesariny Calafate Polytechnic University of Valencia e-mail: calafate@disca.upv.es http://reptar.grc.upv.es/~calafate/ Tel: +34 963879703 ext. 77977 _________________________________________________ ---MOQ1044009368649427ca7e46218a0bc9bff12af99112 Content-Type: application/x-tcl; name="testlimit.tcl"; name="testlimit.tcl" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="testlimit.tcl" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 CgojID09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09P T09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KIyBEZWZpbmUgb3B0aW9ucwojID09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT 09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0 KCnNldCB2YWwoY2hhbikgICAgICAgQ2hhbm5lbC9XaXJlbGVzc0NoYW5uZWwKc2V0IHZhbChw cm9wKSAgICAgICBQcm9wYWdhdGlvbi9Ud29SYXlHcm91bmQKc2V0IHZhbChuZXRpZikgICAgI CBQaHkvV2lyZWxlc3NQaHkKc2V0IHZhbChtYWMpICAgICAgICBNYWMvODAyXzExCnNldCB2YW woaWZxKSAgICAgICAgUXVldWUvRHJvcFRhaWwvUHJpUXVldWUKc2V0IHZhbChsbCkgICAgICA gICBMTApzZXQgdmFsKGFudCkgICAgICAgIEFudGVubmEvT21uaUFudGVubmEKc2V0IHZhbCh4 KSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTUwMCAgICAgICAgICAgIDsjIFggZGltZW5zaW9uIG9mIHRoZSB0b 3BvZ3JhcGh5CnNldCB2YWwoeSkgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDE1MDAgICAgICAgICAgICA7IyBZIG RpbWVuc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgdG9wb2dyYXBoeQpzZXQgdmFsKGlmcWxlbikgICAgICAgICA1MCA gICAgICAgICAgICA7IyBtYXggcGFja2V0IGluIGlmcQpzZXQgdmFsKHNlZWQpICAgICAgICAg ICAxLjAKc2V0IHZhbChhZGhvY1JvdXRpbmcpICAgQU9EVgpzZXQgdmFsKG5uKSAgICAgICAgI CAgICA2ICAgICAgICAgICAgIDsjIGhvdyBtYW55IG5vZGVzIGFyZSBzaW11bGF0ZWQgCnNldC B2YWwoY3ApICAgICAgICAgICAgICJjYnItbjQ4LXMxLW00OC1yNS4wIiAgICAgIDsjcGFkcm9 uIGRlIGNvbmV4aW9uZXMKc2V0IHZhbChzYykgICAgICAgICAgICAgInNjZW4tbGltaXQyIiAg ICAgOyAjZXNjZW5hcmlvIGRlIHRyYWZpY28gCnNldCB2YWwoc3RvcCkgICAgICAgICAgIDUwL jAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOyMgc2ltdWxhdGlvbiB0aW1lCnNldCB2YWwodHJmaWxlKSAgICAgIC AgIG91dC50cgpzZXQgdmFsKG5hbWZpbGUpICAgICAgICBvdXQubmFtCnNldCB2YWwocmFuZG9 tX21vYmlsaXR5KSAgIEZBTFNFCgojID09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQojIE1haW4gUHJvZ3JhbQojI D09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT 09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KCiMKIyBJbml0aWFsaXplIEdsb2JhbCBWYXJpYWJsZXMKIwoKIyB zZXQgcmFuZG9tIG51bWJlciBnZW5lcmF0b3IgCm5zLXJhbmRvbSAwCgojdXNpbmc6IE1hYyBz ZXQgYmFuZHdpZHRoXyAxMU1iCgojIGNyZWF0ZSBzaW11bGF0b3IgaW5zdGFuY2UKCnNldCBuc 18JCVtuZXcgU2ltdWxhdG9yXQoKI3RyYWNlIGZpbGUgZm9ybWF0CgokbnNfIHVzZS1uZXd0cm FjZQoKCiMgc2V0dXAgdG9wb2dyYXBoeSBvYmplY3QKCnNldCB0b3BvCVtuZXcgVG9wb2dyYXB oeV0KCiMgY3JlYXRlIHRyYWNlIG9iamVjdCBmb3IgbnMgYW5kIG5hbQoKc2V0IHRyYWNlZmQJ W29wZW4gJHZhbCh0cmZpbGUpIHddCnNldCBuYW10cmFjZSAgICBbb3BlbiAkdmFsKG5hbWZpb GUpIHddCgokbnNfIHRyYWNlLWFsbCAkdHJhY2VmZAokbnNfIG5hbXRyYWNlLWFsbC13aXJlbG VzcyAkbmFtdHJhY2UgJHZhbCh4KSAkdmFsKHkpCgojIGRlZmluZSB0b3BvbG9neQokdG9wbyB sb2FkX2ZsYXRncmlkICR2YWwoeCkgJHZhbCh5KQoKCiMKIyBDcmVhdGUgR29kCiMKc2V0IGdv ZF8gW2NyZWF0ZS1nb2QgJHZhbChubildCgojCiMgZGVmaW5lIGhvdyBub2RlIHNob3VsZCBiZ SBjcmVhdGVkCiMKCiNnbG9iYWwgbm9kZSBzZXR0aW5nCgokbnNfIG5vZGUtY29uZmlnIC1hZG hvY1JvdXRpbmcgJHZhbChhZGhvY1JvdXRpbmcpIFwKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtbGxUeXB lICR2YWwobGwpIFwKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtbWFjVHlwZSAkdmFsKG1hYykgXAogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIC1pZnFUeXBlICR2YWwoaWZxKSBcCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLWlmc UxlbiAkdmFsKGlmcWxlbikgXAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC1hbnRUeXBlICR2YWwoYW50KS BcCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLXByb3BUeXBlICR2YWwocHJvcCkgXAogICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgIC1waHlUeXBlICR2YWwobmV0aWYpIFwKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtY2hhbm5lbFR5 cGUgJHZhbChjaGFuKSBcCgkJIC10b3BvSW5zdGFuY2UgJHRvcG8gXAoJCSAtYWdlbnRUcmFjZ SBPTiBcCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLXJvdXRlclRyYWNlIE9OIFwKICAgICAgICAgICAgIC AgICAtbWFjVHJhY2UgT0ZGIFwKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtbW92ZW1lbnRUcmFjZSAgT0Z GCgoKIwojICBDcmVhdGUgdGhlIHNwZWNpZmllZCBudW1iZXIgb2Ygbm9kZXMgWyR2YWwobm4p XSBhbmQgImF0dGFjaCIgdGhlbQojICB0byB0aGUgY2hhbm5lbC4gCgpmb3Ige3NldCBpIDB9I HskaSA8ICR2YWwobm4pIH0ge2luY3IgaX0gewoJc2V0IG5vZGVfKCRpKSBbJG5zXyBub2RlXQ p9CgojCiMgRGVmaW5lIGFnZW50IGNvbm5lY3Rpdml0eQojCgpwdXRzICJMb2FkaW5nIGNvbm5 lY3Rpb24gcGF0dGVybi4uLiIKI3NvdXJjZSAkdmFsKGNwKQoKIyBEZWZpbmUgdGVzdCBjb25u ZWN0aW9ucwoKCnNldCB1ZHBfKDApIFtuZXcgQWdlbnQvVURQXQokbnNfIGF0dGFjaC1hZ2Vud CAkbm9kZV8oMCkgJHVkcF8oMCkKc2V0IG51bGxfKDApIFtuZXcgQWdlbnQvTnVsbF0KJG5zXy BhdHRhY2gtYWdlbnQgJG5vZGVfKDMpICRudWxsXygwKQpzZXQgY2JyXygwKSBbbmV3IEFwcGx pY2F0aW9uL1RyYWZmaWMvQ0JSXQokY2JyXygwKSBzZXQgcGFja2V0U2l6ZV8gMTI4CiRjYnJf KDApIHNldCBpbnRlcnZhbF8gMC4wMQokY2JyXygwKSBzZXQgcmFuZG9tXyAwCiRjYnJfKDApI GF0dGFjaC1hZ2VudCAkdWRwXygwKQokbnNfIGNvbm5lY3QgJHVkcF8oMCkgJG51bGxfKDApCi Ruc18gYXQgMjAuMCAiJGNicl8oMCkgc3RhcnQiCgoKCiMgCiMgRGVmaW5lIG5vZGUgbW92ZW1 lbnQgbW9kZWwKIwoKaWYgeyR2YWwocmFuZG9tX21vYmlsaXR5KX0gewogICAgcHV0cyAiUmFu ZG9tIG1vYmlsaXR5IG9uIgogICAgCiAgICAjU3RhcnQgUmFuZG9tIG1vdGlvbgogICAgZm9yI HtzZXQgaSAwfSB7JGkgPCAkdmFsKG5uKSB9IHtpbmNyIGl9IHsKCSRub2RlXygkaSkgcmFuZG 9tLW1vdGlvbiAxCQk7IyBlbmFibGUgcmFuZG9tIG1vdGlvbgoJJG5vZGVfKCRpKSBzdGFydAo gICAgfQoKfSBlbHNlIHsKICAgICMgCiAgICAjIERlZmluZSB0cmFmZmljIG1vZGVsCiAgICAj CiAgICBwdXRzICJSYW5kb20gbW9iaWxpdHkgb2ZmOiBMb2FkaW5nIHNjZW5hcmlvIGZpbGUuL i4iCiAgICBzb3VyY2UgJHZhbChzYykKfQoKCgoKIyBEZWZpbmUgbm9kZSBpbml0aWFsIHBvc2 l0aW9uIGluIG5hbQoKZm9yIHtzZXQgaSAwfSB7JGkgPCAkdmFsKG5uKX0ge2luY3IgaX0gewo KICAgICMgMjAgZGVmaW5lcyB0aGUgbm9kZSBzaXplIGluIG5hbSwgbXVzdCBhZGp1c3QgaXQg YWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgc2NlbmFyaW8KICAgICMgVGhlIGZ1bmN0aW9uIG11c3QgYmUgY 2FsbGVkIGFmdGVyIG1vYmlsaXR5IG1vZGVsIGlzIGRlZmluZWQKICAgIAogICAgJG5zXyBpbm l0aWFsX25vZGVfcG9zICRub2RlXygkaSkgMjAKfQoKCiMKIyBUZWxsIG5vZGVzIHdoZW4gdGh lIHNpbXVsYXRpb24gZW5kcwojCmZvciB7c2V0IGkgMH0geyRpIDwgJHZhbChubikgfSB7aW5j ciBpfSB7CiAgICAkbnNfIGF0ICR2YWwoc3RvcCkuMCAiJG5vZGVfKCRpKSByZXNldCI7Cn0KC iRuc18gYXQgICR2YWwoc3RvcCkuMDAwMiAicHV0cyBcIk5TIEVYSVRJTkcuLi5cIiA7ICRuc1 8gaGFsdCIKCiNwdXRzICR0cmFjZWZkICJNIDAuMCBubiAkdmFsKG5uKSB4ICR2YWwoeCkgeSA kdmFsKHkpIHJwICR2YWwoYWRob2NSb3V0aW5nKSIKI3B1dHMgJHRyYWNlZmQgIk0gMC4wIHNj ICR2YWwoc2MpIGNwICR2YWwoY3ApIHNlZWQgJHZhbChzZWVkKSIKI3B1dHMgJHRyYWNlZmQgI k0gMC4wIHByb3AgJHZhbChwcm9wKSBhbnQgJHZhbChhbnQpIgoKcHV0cyAiU3RhcnRpbmcgU2 ltdWxhdGlvbi4uLiIKJG5zXyBydW4KCgoKCgo= ---MOQ1044009368649427ca7e46218a0bc9bff12af99112 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="scen-limit2"; name="scen-limit2" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="scen-limit2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 CiRub2RlXygwKSBzZXQgWF8gMTAwLjAKJG5vZGVfKDApIHNldCBZXyAyNTAuMAokbm9kZV8oMCkg c2V0IFpfIDAuMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwCiRub2RlXygxKSBzZXQgWF8gMjUwLjAKJG5vZGVfKDEpIHNl dCBZXyA0NTAuMAokbm9kZV8oMSkgc2V0IFpfIDAuMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwCiRub2RlXygyKSBzZXQg WF8gNTAwLjAKJG5vZGVfKDIpIHNldCBZXyA0NTAuMAokbm9kZV8oMikgc2V0IFpfIDAuMDAwMDAw MDAwMDAwCiRub2RlXygzKSBzZXQgWF8gNjUwLjAKJG5vZGVfKDMpIHNldCBZXyAyNTAuMAokbm9k ZV8oMykgc2V0IFpfIDAuMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwCiRub2RlXyg0KSBzZXQgWF8gMjQ5LjAKJG5vZGVf KDQpIHNldCBZXyA0NS4wCiRub2RlXyg0KSBzZXQgWl8gMC4wMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAKJG5vZGVfKDUp IHNldCBYXyA1MDAuMAokbm9kZV8oNSkgc2V0IFlfIDUwLjAKJG5vZGVfKDUpIHNldCBaXyAwLjAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMAoKCiMkbnNfIGF0IDI0LjUwMDAwMDAwMDAwMCAiJG5vZGVfKDIpIHNldGRlc3Qg MjUwLjAgNTAuMCAxMDAuMCIKIyRuc18gYXQgMjUuMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwICIkbm9kZV8oMSkgc2V0 ZGVzdCAyNDkuMCAxNDk5LjAgMTAwLjAiCgokbnNfIGF0IDI0LjAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMCAiJG5vZGVf KDQpIHNldGRlc3QgMjUwLjAgNTAuMCAxMDAwLjAiCiRuc18gYXQgMjUuMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwICIk bm9kZV8oMikgc2V0ZGVzdCAxNDk5LjAgMTQ5OS4wIDEwMDAuMCIK ---MOQ1044009368649427ca7e46218a0bc9bff12af99112-- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 08:03:35 2003 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 IAA05464 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:03:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VD75O24076 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:07:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VD75J24073 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:07:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05448 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:02:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VCk4J23173; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:46:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VCe8J22986 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:40:08 -0500 Received: from web40805.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA04657 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:36:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030131123940.81626.qmail@web40805.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [165.21.83.230] by web40805.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 04:39:40 PST Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 04:39:40 -0800 (PST) From: Alvin Valera Subject: Re: [manet] Error simulating with AODV, DSR and TORA To: calafate@disca.upv.es, manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1044009368.3e3a519878bad@nao.disca.upv.es> 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Carlos Miguel, I performed many simulations in ns-2.1b8 specifically on the reaction of routing protocols to link failures. I haven't encountered your problem, though. Could it be that the delay in detecting a link failure is due to link layer retransmissions? In 802.11, as far as ns-2.1b8 is concerned, a sender retries several times (I could not remember the exact value) before informing the routing protocol that a data packet is undeliverable? Another possible reason is congestion. In my studies, I encountered many instances where 802.11 reports a link layer failure even though the receiver is within range. This is due to the fact that in highly congested environment, the MAC of the sender may fail to acquire the channel or complete the RTS-CTS-DATA-ACK. Best regards, Alvin --- calafate@disca.upv.es wrote: > Hi, > > I have sent a possible bug report to the NS mailing > list, but since no one was > able to give me a reply, perhaps someone in this > mailing list is interested. > > Results of dozens of simulations using AODV, DSR and > TORA in ns2.1b9a (2.1b8 > too) show that these protocols do not behave > correctly when there are 802.11 > broken links. > > When looking at the overall results of simulations > with many nodes, the effect I > describe is not evident. It is necessary to look at > a single flow to see that > nodes fail to quickly detect broken links, making > the re-routing process last > too long. This effect does not exist when using > other protocols like OLSR or > Hello-driven AODV since they do not use link-layer > info. > > The files I attach show this problem clearly in a > very simple scenario > > Please help! > > Best regards, > > _________________________________________________ > Carlos Miguel Tavares de Araújo Cesariny Calafate > Polytechnic University of Valencia > e-mail: calafate@disca.upv.es > http://reptar.grc.upv.es/~calafate/ > Tel: +34 963879703 ext. 77977 > _________________________________________________ > > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/x-tcl name=testlimit.tcl; name=testlimit.tcl > ATTACHMENT part 3 application/octet-stream name=scen-limit2; name=scen-limit2 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 10:21:38 2003 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 KAA09296 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:21:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VFPBJ32391 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:25:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VFPBJ32388 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:25:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09276 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:21:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VFDUJ31787; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:13:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VFAmJ31702 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:10:48 -0500 Received: from marfik.upv.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08920 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:06:43 -0500 (EST) From: calafate@disca.upv.es Received: from pop.upv.es (maia.cc.upv.es [158.42.4.11]) by marfik.upv.es (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VFALk09876; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:10:21 +0100 Received: from smtp2.upv.es (smtp2.cc.upv.es [158.42.250.31]) by pop.upv.es (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0VFANM12707; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:10:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from nao.disca.upv.es (nao.disca.upv.es [158.42.53.70]) by smtp2.upv.es (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0VFANV14507; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:10:24 +0100 Received: by nao.disca.upv.es (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 30) id 4691E1FE8E; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:08:54 +0100 (CET) To: Alvin Valera Subject: Re: [manet] Error simulating with AODV, DSR and TORA Message-ID: <1044025734.3e3a91864093f@nao.disca.upv.es> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:08:54 +0100 (CET) Cc: manet@ietf.org References: <20030131123940.81626.qmail@web40805.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20030131123940.81626.qmail@web40805.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.3 X-Originating-IP: 158.42.180.53 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Alvin, Thank you for your comments on this subject. My opinion is that, since I created a very simple scenario with just 6 ones and 1 traffic flow, we can't blame collisions for the behaviour observed. Also, it's true that the sender retries several times (I think 4 times), but I guess that 10 or 20 seconds to detect a broken link is too much, don't you? If link-level aware protocols were supposed to behave that bad, we would conform to just sending "Hellos"! It's curious to notice that the problems are not the same for all: the worst performance can be seen with DSR but TORA suddenly stops sending packets and everything is still! Please comment the "ns-random 0" line and you'll see exactly what I see. Best regards, Carlos Mensaje citado por: Alvin Valera : > Hi Carlos Miguel, > > I performed many simulations in ns-2.1b8 specifically > on the reaction of routing protocols to link failures. > I haven't encountered your problem, though. > > Could it be that the delay in detecting a link failure > is due to link layer retransmissions? In 802.11, as > far as ns-2.1b8 is concerned, a sender retries several > times (I could not remember the exact value) before > informing the routing protocol that a data packet is > undeliverable? > > Another possible reason is congestion. In my studies, > I encountered many instances where 802.11 reports a > link layer failure even though the receiver is within > range. This is due to the fact that in highly > congested environment, the MAC of the sender may fail > to acquire the channel or complete the > RTS-CTS-DATA-ACK. > > > Best regards, > Alvin > _________________________________________________ Carlos Miguel Tavares de Araújo Cesariny Calafate Becário de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia e-mail: calafate@disca.upv.es http://reptar.grc.upv.es/~calafate/ Tel: +34 963879703 ext. 77977 _________________________________________________ \\\\\\\"In an open world without walls and fences who needs Windows and Gates?\\\\\\\" _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 15:55:49 2003 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 PAA18670 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:55:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VKxTM18991 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:59:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VKxTJ18988 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:59:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18661 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:55:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VKgWJ18421; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:42:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VKbFJ17897 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:37:15 -0500 Received: from edgar1.colorado.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18074 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from Shweta (ecee189-10-dhcp.Colorado.EDU [128.138.189.10]) by edgar1.colorado.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with SMTP id h0VKabI11934 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:36:37 -0700 (MST) Reply-To: From: "Shweta Bhandare" To: "Manet" Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:36:36 -0700 Message-ID: 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 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Next IETF meeting 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Does anybody know abt the venue and approx dates of the next IETF meeting (not the one thats being held in SFO in March 2003)? Thanks, Shweta Shweta Bhandare University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, CO - 80303 Tel: 303-492-2759 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 19:43:03 2003 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 TAA23675 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:43:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h110kkT30328 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:46:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h110kkJ30325 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:46:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23650 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:42:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h110bOJ29892; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:37:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h110YfJ29258 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:34:41 -0500 Received: from fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23316 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:30:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from imgw1.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (ons-imgw1 [192.168.1.66]) by fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h110XjTv007276 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:33:56 -0700 Received: from cpsc.ucalgary.ca (ict720f [136.159.17.10]) by imgw1.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h0VNk5MP012624 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:46:05 -0700 Message-ID: <3E3B0ABD.6050602@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:46:05 -0700 From: Abhinav Gupta Reply-To: gupta@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Organization: University of Calgary User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-milter (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.2 required=7.3 X-Spam-Level: *** Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] APE test bed 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I have downloaded the APE (Ad hoc performance evaluation) testbed and am trying to install it. When I try to make the package I get following error: /home/grads/gupta/ape-sources-0.4/kernel/linux/Makefile: No such file or directory Am I supposed to copy the contents of linux kernal under /usr/src/linux 2.4.x to ~/ape-sources-0.4/kernel/linux? Also if somebody has used this package, can they let me know of its performance? Abhinav. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 21:23:11 2003 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 VAA25153 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:23:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h112QvX02259 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:26:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h112QvJ02256 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:26:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25145 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h112BaJ01785; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:11:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1127FJ01544 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:07:15 -0500 Received: from geranium.noc.ucla.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24915 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:02:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from orchid.noc.ucla.edu (orchid.noc.ucla.edu [169.232.48.12]) by geranium.noc.ucla.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h1126Vga019190; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:06:31 -0800 Received: from einstmob (Cs-33-115.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.33.115]) (authenticated bits=0) by orchid.noc.ucla.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1126LQV021105; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:06:30 -0800 From: "Mario Gerla" To: Cc: , , "'Mani B. Srivastava'" , "'Izhak Rubin'" Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:06:15 -0800 Organization: UCLA Message-ID: <001a01c2c996$83ec8b30$7321b383@einstmob> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.25 / SpamAssassin 2.43 / mail.ucla.edu X-Probable-Spam: no X-Spam-Hits: -0.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] RE: Second Annual AINS Symposium, Bologna, Italy, June 30- July1, 2003 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please find attached the AINS 2003 Call For Papers. Extended Abstract deadline February 24 My apologies for multiple listings Mario Gerla ----------------------------------------------------------- The Second Annual Symposium on Autonomous Intelligent Networks and Systems www.ains.cs.ucla.edu, http://path.berkeley.edu/ains At Santa Lucia Complex, Bologna, Italy June 30 to July 1, 2003. This annual symposium, sponsored by the IEEE Control Systems Society and the Office of Naval Research, seeks to explore research that supports the development of intelligent networks of many autonomous agents, including UAV's, UGV's, or AUV's, interacting with the physical world in a coordinated fashion, and also to explore applications of such systems for defense, security, industrial control, environmental monitoring, and planetary exploration. Papers are invited from technologists in academia, industry, or research labs. Papers may describe research or technology advances as well as ongoing prototyping efforts, experience reports, or case studies. For submission details see http://path.berkeley.edu/ains Topics include but are not limited to . Self-configuring agent-based wireless networks . Collaborative robotic systems, large robotic "swarms" . Hierarchical systems and dynamic system re-organization . Systems informed by advances in neuro-biological networks . Distributed sensing and control networks . Cooperative behavior in natural and artificial systems . Software architecture for large-scale systems . Simulation of large scale distributed systems . Experimental platforms for the study of autonomous agents . Security in distributed systems . Fault tolerant distributed agent networks . Resource management in autonomous systems Important Dates . Electronic Abstract (3 pages) Submission February 24th, 2003 . Acceptance/Rejection Notification March 24th, 2003 . Camera Ready Manuscripts (3000 words max), April 21th, 2003 Program Committee Members: Roberto Battiti, Datta Godbole, Francesco Delli Priscoli, Mario Gerla, Karl Hedrick, Marc Lindsley, Charlie Ortiz, Thomas Parisini, Izhak Rubin, Peter Stone, Joao Sousa. Program Chairs: Alberto Isidori, Raja Sengupta. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 22:43:38 2003 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 WAA26679 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:43:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h113lQw05772 for manet-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:47:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h113lQJ05769 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:47:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26671 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:43:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h113U8J04713; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:30:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h113QJJ04639 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:26:19 -0500 Received: from memphis.ece.cornell.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25975 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:22:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from photon.ece.cornell.edu (photon.ece.cornell.edu [128.84.81.138]) by memphis.ece.cornell.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h113PVK29626; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:25:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:23:08 -0500 (EST) From: Edward Hua X-X-Sender: eyh5@photon.ece.cornell.edu To: Abhinav Gupta cc: manet Subject: Re: [manet] APE test bed In-Reply-To: <3E3B0ABD.6050602@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Message-ID: 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: , List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , If your error is what I think it is, you might want to try to do a symbolic link from /usr/src/linux to your APE subdirectory. To do that: go to /usr/src/ and type: ln -s /home/grads/gupta/ape-sources-0.4/kernel/linux ./linux and then try the Makefile again. I also suggest you read the APE instructions manual carefully because sometimes it's easy to let a few details slip. -Ed On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Abhinav Gupta wrote: > Hi, > > I have downloaded the APE (Ad hoc performance evaluation) testbed and am > trying to install it. When I try to make the package I get following error: > /home/grads/gupta/ape-sources-0.4/kernel/linux/Makefile: No such file or > directory > > Am I supposed to copy the contents of linux kernal under /usr/src/linux > 2.4.x to ~/ape-sources-0.4/kernel/linux? > > Also if somebody has used this package, can they let me know of its > performance? > > > Abhinav. > > _______________________________________________ > 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