Message

"Francisco J. Ros" <fjrm@dif.um.es> wrote:

Hi,

I think you are confusing Mess= age Sequence Number (D_seq_num) with ANSN
(Advertised Neighbor Sequen= ce Number). So the last TC messages will be
forwarded because Message= Sequence Number is updated every time a new message
is sent.

= Regards,
Francisco J. Ros

El Martes, 21 de Diciembre de 2004 19= :39, manet user escribi=F3:
> Hi,
>
> According to sect= ion 4.1 in OLSR RFC 3626, the message should not be
> retransmitted= if D_addr, D_seq_num and D_iface_list matches.
>
> Consideri= ng an example of node A -----> node B. A sending TC to node B
> = at time 1sec. Both node A and B have only 1 interface.
>
> At= timme 1 sec, B recvs TC from node A, and suppose it is not selected
&= gt; as MPR by A at that time. So it will not forward the TC. It stores> Duplicate Entry with D_iface_list as its intf_addr and D_rexmit as False.
>
> Now this entry will be there till= 31 sec (assuming 30 sec expiry for
> dup entry).
>
> S= omewhere between 1 and 31 sec, if node B was selected as MPR by node
&= gt; A, but node A's MPR selector set remains same, TC seq num will remain=
> same.
> TCs recvd by node B from A, will not be forwarded = as the Duplicate
> Entry with D_addr, D_seq_num exists with D_iface= _list as its intf_addr.
> This will not allow node B to forward any= TC from node A till this dup
> entry expires, though it should for= ward those TCs.
>
> Is this correct behavior? Please help if = i am missing something.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> T= he all-new My Yahoo! =96 What will yours do?

Do you Yahoo!?
=20 Meet the all-new My Yahoo! =96 Try it= today!=20 --0-1611187133-1103672910=:68004-- --===============0067003240== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============0067003240==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 21 21:38:37 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06622 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:38:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CgwYE-00055y-11 for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:48:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CgwI3-0005Dk-00; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:31:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cgw9B-000278-KI for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:22:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05302 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:22:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr ([192.93.2.78]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CgwIl-0004bt-Hm for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:32:36 -0500 Received: from yamacraw.inria.fr (yamacraw.inria.fr [128.93.24.137]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iBM2M8uE001098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Dec 2004 03:22:09 +0100 Received: from yamacraw.inria.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by yamacraw.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iBM2M8nH028169; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 03:22:08 +0100 Received: (from apache@localhost) by yamacraw.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.12.10/Submit) id iBM2M7EU028166; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 03:22:07 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: yamacraw.inria.fr: apache set sender to philippe.jacquet@inria.fr using -f Received: from caligula.ics.mq.edu.au (caligula.ics.mq.edu.au [137.111.216.136]) by pops-rocq.inria.fr (IMP) with HTTP for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 03:22:07 +0100 Message-ID: <1103682127.41c8da4f3a967@pops-rocq.inria.fr> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 03:22:07 +0100 From: Philippe Jacquet To: manet user Subject: Re: [manet] doubt in OLSR duplicate set References: <20041221234830.68149.qmail@web61110.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20041221234830.68149.qmail@web61110.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.2 X-Originating-IP: 137.111.216.136 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41C8DA50.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by nez-perce.inria.fr id iBM2M8uE001098 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1676547e4f33b5e63227e9c02bd359e3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scalability can be an issue for mobile ad hoc routing but it has not been included in the OLSR RFC. Originally OLSR design allows the Fisheye techn= ique developped by Mario Gerla of UCLA. Basically it consists to play with TC'= s TTL. The same node change the TTL for any new TC, large TTL being less frequen= t than short TTL. Doing so the local control traffic is much less affected by th= e TC's coming from remote nodes. In theory by an appropriate scaling of frequenc= y versus TTL one can handle an unbounded number of nodes while keeping the = local control traffic bounded.=20 Of course less frequent TC with large TTL should be send with an appropri= ately larger VTime so that link information does not disappear in remote note database before the next TC reaches it.=20 We have a paper about this option in an incoming JCN special issue (decem= ber 2004). Philippe =20 Quoting manet user : > Thanks Francisco and Hakim for clarifying the doubt. I got confused bet= ween > D_seq_num and ANSN. So basically duplicate set entries are only added/u= pdated > when a packet/message is considered for forwarding (rexmitted will be t= rue or > false depending if fwding condition was met or not). > =20 > I observe OLSR to be way too slow for large networks (for approx 400-50= 0 > nodes placed in a grid in a simulation environment). Application traffi= c is > not too exhaustive, but just the control overhead consumes all the band= width. > Even without mobility, TC flooding, processing and resulting route tabl= e > recalculations are too frequent and expensive. Isn't this an OLSR scala= bility > issue? Any such experience/comments will help me better understand this > behavior. > =20 > Thanks. > =20 > =20 >=20 > "Francisco J. Ros" wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I think you are confusing Message Sequence Number (D_seq_num) with ANSN= =20 > (Advertised Neighbor Sequence Number). So the last TC messages will be=20 > forwarded because Message Sequence Number is updated every time a new m= essage >=20 > is sent. >=20 > Regards, > Francisco J. Ros >=20 > El Martes, 21 de Diciembre de 2004 19:39, manet user escribi=F3: > > Hi, > > > > According to section 4.1 in OLSR RFC 3626, the message should not be > > retransmitted if D_addr, D_seq_num and D_iface_list matches. > > > > Considering an example of node A -----> node B. A sending TC to node = B > > at time 1sec. Both node A and B have only 1 interface. > > > > At time 1 sec, B recvs TC from node A, and suppose it is not selected > > as MPR by A at that time. So it will not forward the TC. It stores > > Duplicate Entry with D_iface_list as its intf_addr and D_rexmit as Fa= lse. > > > > Now this entry will be there till 31 sec (assuming 30 sec expiry for > > dup entry). > > > > Somewhere between 1 and 31 sec, if node B was selected as MPR by node > > A, but node A's MPR selector set remains same, TC seq num will remain > > same. > > TCs recvd by node B from A, will not be forwarded as the Duplicate > > Entry with D_addr, D_seq_num exists with D_iface_list as its intf_add= r. > > This will not allow node B to forward any TC from node A till this du= p > > entry expires, though it should forward those TCs. > > > > Is this correct behavior? Please help if i am missing something. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The all-new My Yahoo! =96 What will yours do? >=20 > =09 > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! =96 Try it today!=20 --=20 Philippe Jacquet Hipercom project team leader INRIA tel: +33 1 39 63 52 63 fax: +33 1 39 63 55 66 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 22 09:54:34 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29192 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ch82W-0000RJ-TH for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:04:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ch7iI-0004B1-8R; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:43:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ch7P8-00041S-IC for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:23:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25976 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:23:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from bay18-f33.bay18.hotmail.com ([65.54.187.83] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ch7Yl-0007aS-R6 for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:33:55 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:22:01 -0800 Message-ID: Received: from 130.161.157.86 by by18fd.bay18.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:21:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [130.161.157.86] X-Originating-Email: [pukkieukkie@hotmail.com] X-Sender: pukkieukkie@hotmail.com From: "Ukkie Pukkie" To: manet@ietf.org Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:21:38 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2004 14:22:01.0036 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A24C8C0:01C4E831] X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Subject: [manet] Newbie question X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Hello, I am looking for an (freely available) implementation of a manet routing algorithm that supports unicast and multicast. It is not for a simulation, but for use on pda's. Anybody has any idea where to find one? Kind regards, pkl _________________________________________________________________ Nieuw: Hotmail Medium, Large, Extra Large en Extra Extra Large http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=nl-nl&page=hotmail/es2 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 22 13:00:06 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18186 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:00:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChAw8-0006LE-IZ for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:10:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChAkR-0007Fn-EL; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:58:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChAgq-0005z7-TO for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:54:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17410 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:54:21 -0500 (EST) From: papadp@ece.cornell.edu Received: from gehenna.ece.cornell.edu ([128.84.95.235]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChAqY-00069v-9O for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:04:27 -0500 Received: from ece.cornell.edu (perdition.ece.cornell.edu [128.84.81.9]) by gehenna.ece.cornell.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 314D01E8016; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:54:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from 128.173.49.1 (SquirrelMail authenticated user papadp) by webmail.ece.cornell.edu with HTTP; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:54:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1581.128.173.49.1.1103738060.squirrel@webmail.ece.cornell.edu> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:54:20 -0500 (EST) To: X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b1c41982e167b872076d0018e4e1dc3c Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [manet] [Call for Papers] ESAS 2005 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6640e3bbe8a4d70c4469bcdcbbf0921d Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENT & CALL FOR PAPERS **** ESAS 2005 **** 2nd European Workshop on Security and Privacy in Ad hoc and Sensor Networks July 14-15, 2005, Budapest, Hungary http://www.crysys.hu/ESAS2005/ The vision of ubiquitous computing has generated a lot of interest in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks. However, besides their potential advantages, these new generations of networks also raise some challenging problems with respect to security and privacy. The aim of this workshop i= s to bring together the network security, cryptography, and wireless networking communities in order to discuss these problems and to propose new solutions. The second ESAS workshop seeks submissions that present original research on all aspects of security and privacy in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks. Submission of papers based on work-in-progress i= s encouraged. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to the following * Privacy and anonymity * Prevention of traffic analysis * Location privacy * Secure positioning and localization * Secure MAC protocols * Secure topology control * Secure routing * Secure in-network processing * Secure context aware computing * Cooperation and fairness * Charging and rewarding * Key management * Trust establishment * Embedded security * Cryptography for resource constrained applications * Distributed intrusion detection IMPORTANT DATES Submission deadline: March 30, 2005 Notification of acceptance: May 16, 2005 Workshop version deadline: May 31, 2005 Workshop: July 14-15, 2005 Proceedings version deadline: August 15, 2005 PROGRAM CHAIRS * Refik Molva, Eurecom, France * Gene Tsudik, UC Irvine, USA PROGRAM COMMITTEE * Imad Aad, EPFL, Switzerland * N. Asokan, Nokia, Finland * Sonja Buchegger, Berkeley, USA * Laurent Bussard, Microsoft, Germany * Levente Butty=E1n, BUTE, CrySyS Lab, Hungary * Srdjan Capkun, UCLA, USA * Claude Castelluccia, INRIA, France * Hannes Hartenstein, University of Karlsruhe, Germany * Yih-Chun Hu, Berkeley, USA * Markus Jakobsson, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA * Yongdae Kim, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA * Stefan Lucks, University of Mannheim, Germany * Breno de Medeiros, Florida State University, USA * Ludovic M=E9, Supelec, France * Gabriel Montenegro, SunLabs, USA * Cristina Nita-Rotaru, Purdue University, USA * Guevara Noubir, Northeastern University, USA * Kaisa Nyberg, Nokia, Finland * Christof Paar, University of Bochum, Germany * Panagiotis Papadimitratos, Cornell University, USA * G=FCnter Sch=E4fer, Technical University of Berlin, Germany * Andre Weimerskirch, University of Bochum, Germany * Dirk Westhoff, NEC Europe Network Lab., Germany * Susanne Wetzel, Stevens Institute of Technology, USA WORKSHOP ORGANIZERS * Levente Butty=E1n, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary (buttyan at crysys.hu) * Claude Castelluccia, INRIA, France (Claude dot Castelluccia at inrialpes.fr) * Dirk Westhoff, NEC Europe Network Lab., Heidelberg, Germany (Dirk dot Westhoff at netlab.nec.de) * Susanne Wetzel, Stevens Institute of Technology, USA (swetzel at cs.stevens.edu) INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS Authors are invited to submit original papers. All submissions will be refereed. Submissions must not substantially duplicate work that any of the authors have published elsewhere or have submitted in parallel. The submissions must not exceed 10 pages (excluding the title page, bibliography and appendices) nor 12 pages overall. The final version should not exceed 15 pages. The preferred submission format is PDF or PostScript. We recommend that you generate the PDF or PS file using LaTeX and the LNCS style available at www.springer.de/comp/lncs. Further information on how to submit papers will be available here http://www.crysys.hu/ESAS2005/submission.html. WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS The Proceedings will be published by Springer after the Workshop in the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) Series (www.springer.de/comp/lncs/). Notice that in order to be included in the proceedings, the authors of an accepted paper must guarantee to present their contribution at the ESAS workshop. LINKS * Call for Papers: http://www.crysys.hu/ESAS2005/cfp.html * Download CFP (pdf): http://www.crysys.hu/ESAS2005/esas2005_cfp_short.pd= f * Submission: http://www.crysys.hu/ESAS2005/submission.html * Technical program: http://www.crysys.hu/ESAS2005/program.html * Registration: http://www.crysys.hu/ESAS2005/registration.html * Location information: http://www.crysys.hu/ESAS2005/location.html * ESAS 2004: http://www.netlab.nec.de/esas/esas2004.html _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 22 15:32:33 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00690 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:32:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChDJf-00021g-9j for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:42:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChD6j-0006Mk-Os; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:29:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChD0M-0001fb-Hh for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:22:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29950 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from aragorn.bbn.com ([128.33.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChDA3-0001jf-4v for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:32:46 -0500 Received: from bbn.com (raisin.bbn.com [128.89.80.35]) by aragorn.bbn.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id iBMKM1je026342; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:22:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41C9D7B6.7B459231@bbn.com> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:23:18 -0500 From: Cesar Santivanez Organization: BBN Technologies (a Verizon's unit) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philippe Jacquet Subject: Re: [manet] OLSR and SCALABILITY References: <20041221234830.68149.qmail@web61110.mail.yahoo.com> <1103682127.41c8da4f3a967@pops-rocq.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by aragorn.bbn.com id iBMKM1je026342 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cdb443e3957ca9b4c5b55e78cfcf4b26 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: manet user , manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 926f893f9bbbfa169f045f85f0cdb955 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Philippe, You just described HSLS routing, developed by BBN under the DAWN project = (part of DARPA's Glomo program). Indeed, the HSLS technique, since it only require= s a modification on the value of the TTL can be applied simultaneously with the MPR techni= que. They are orthogonal and complimentary: HSLS helps you when the network diamete= r is large,=20 and MPRs help you when the network density is high (e.g. your radios cann= ot do power=20 control). We have combined both techniques successfully in several projec= ts in the past. > In theory by an appropriate scaling of frequency > versus TTL one can handle an unbounded number of nodes while keeping th= e local > control traffic bounded. Well, we wish this could be true. Unfortunately, in order to keep the con= trol traffic bounded as the number of nodes increases, you would have to decrease the rate of = Link State Updates to=20 a point when the quality of the routes would be no longer acceptable. Wha= t we discovered is that we need to balance the overhead due to control traffic with the penalty f= or lower-quality routes. For uniform traffic conditions, the best scheduled was found. Thi= s schedule (HSLS) maintains a linear relationship between distance and link state informati= on latency. Thus, when using the optimal schedule, as the number of nodes increases b= oth the control overhead and the penalty due to bad routes increases - at= the same rate -- to the point that they render the network ineffective. However, this breaking point is on the sa= me order of magnitude as the number of nodes that the network can handle (due to traffic starva= tion, i.e. the traffic demands grow faster than available bandwidth with respect to the = number of nodes) anyway. Thus, with HSLS, routing is no longer the limiting factor on netw= ork effectiveness. For further information, you can take a look at: (1) Cesar Santivanez and Ram Ramanathan, "Hazy Sighted Link State (HSLS) = Routing: A Scalable Link State Algorithm," BBN Technical Memorandum No. 1301, August 31, 2001= .=20 http://www.ir.bbn.com/documents/techmemos/TM1301.ps http://www.ir.bbn.com/documents/techmemos/TM1301.pdf (2) C. Santivanez, B. McDonald, I. Stavrakakis, and R. Ramanathan, "On th= e Scalability of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols," Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM'0= 2, New York, June, 2002. http://www.ir.bbn.com/documents/articles/infocom07.ps http://www.ir.bbn.com/documents/articles/infocom07.pdf Regards Cesar Philippe Jacquet wrote: >=20 > Scalability can be an issue for mobile ad hoc routing but it has not be= en > included in the OLSR RFC. Originally OLSR design allows the Fisheye tec= hnique > developped by Mario Gerla of UCLA. Basically it consists to play with T= C's TTL. > The same node change the TTL for any new TC, large TTL being less frequ= ent than > short TTL. Doing so the local control traffic is much less affected by = the TC's > coming from remote nodes. In theory by an appropriate scaling of freque= ncy > versus TTL one can handle an unbounded number of nodes while keeping th= e local > control traffic bounded. >=20 > Of course less frequent TC with large TTL should be send with an approp= riately > larger VTime so that link information does not disappear in remote note > database before the next TC reaches it. >=20 > We have a paper about this option in an incoming JCN special issue (dec= ember > 2004). >=20 > Philippe >=20 > Quoting manet user : >=20 > > Thanks Francisco and Hakim for clarifying the doubt. I got confused b= etween > > D_seq_num and ANSN. So basically duplicate set entries are only added= /updated > > when a packet/message is considered for forwarding (rexmitted will be= true or > > false depending if fwding condition was met or not). > > > > I observe OLSR to be way too slow for large networks (for approx 400-= 500 > > nodes placed in a grid in a simulation environment). Application traf= fic is > > not too exhaustive, but just the control overhead consumes all the ba= ndwidth. > > Even without mobility, TC flooding, processing and resulting route ta= ble > > recalculations are too frequent and expensive. Isn't this an OLSR sca= lability > > issue? Any such experience/comments will help me better understand th= is > > behavior. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > "Francisco J. Ros" wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think you are confusing Message Sequence Number (D_seq_num) with AN= SN > > (Advertised Neighbor Sequence Number). So the last TC messages will b= e > > forwarded because Message Sequence Number is updated every time a new= message > > > > is sent. > > > > Regards, > > Francisco J. Ros > > > > El Martes, 21 de Diciembre de 2004 19:39, manet user escribi=F3: > > > Hi, > > > > > > According to section 4.1 in OLSR RFC 3626, the message should not b= e > > > retransmitted if D_addr, D_seq_num and D_iface_list matches. > > > > > > Considering an example of node A -----> node B. A sending TC to nod= e B > > > at time 1sec. Both node A and B have only 1 interface. > > > > > > At time 1 sec, B recvs TC from node A, and suppose it is not select= ed > > > as MPR by A at that time. So it will not forward the TC. It stores > > > Duplicate Entry with D_iface_list as its intf_addr and D_rexmit as = False. > > > > > > Now this entry will be there till 31 sec (assuming 30 sec expiry fo= r > > > dup entry). > > > > > > Somewhere between 1 and 31 sec, if node B was selected as MPR by no= de > > > A, but node A's MPR selector set remains same, TC seq num will rema= in > > > same. > > > TCs recvd by node B from A, will not be forwarded as the Duplicate > > > Entry with D_addr, D_seq_num exists with D_iface_list as its intf_a= ddr. > > > This will not allow node B to forward any TC from node A till this = dup > > > entry expires, though it should forward those TCs. > > > > > > Is this correct behavior? Please help if i am missing something. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! >=20 > -- > Philippe Jacquet > Hipercom project team leader > INRIA > tel: +33 1 39 63 52 63 > fax: +33 1 39 63 55 66 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --=20 Cesar Santivanez, Ph.D. Network Scientist Internetwork Research BBN Technologies _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 23 05:14:57 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24129 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:14:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChQ9f-0006FM-Bt for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:25:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChPmT-0002u8-Km; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:01:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChPck-000106-UJ for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:51:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23248 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:51:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from web52809.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.39.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChPma-0005jS-Nt for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:01:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 32481 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Dec 2004 09:50:38 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=uhwAdEq7WHv7TEPBuMbMSr/p8dbQFvUka2xlWhl4tIwe+dCO5L2C0po3/v7GH77gSgLNg2Ngn2NuYm6H3L8JNDAw1L+X6DKrkiNtD167nzz5FJ2xv6hW+UsBquaqS68b4ZGv3EyAXI/008qIgOgfsTWh0xNoS7JvgU10FKNi18c= ; Message-ID: <20041223095038.32479.qmail@web52809.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [161.200.255.161] by web52809.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:50:38 PST Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:50:38 -0800 (PST) From: pakorn kulsirimongkol To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Subject: [manet] beaconning in manet X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1975843311==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 --===============1975843311== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1642056087-1103795438=:32149" --0-1642056087-1103795438=:32149 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear, sir i am researching in ah hoc network and have been confused something. in link state routing protocol use beaconning for declaring its position . any node which receive beacon can know its neighbor. my question first question what layer is beacon used? (network/data link) second question when any node want to send a beacon, that node must sense for free channel before sending. thus many nodes want to send the beacon at the same time. do each node have to wait for free channel? third question if this routing send beacon more frequently, it will use more bandwidth ?? sincerely pakorn k. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. --0-1642056087-1103795438=:32149 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Dear, sir

i am researching in ah hoc network and have been confused something.

in link state routing protocol use beaconning for declaring its position . any node which receive beacon can know its neighbor.

my question

first question

what layer is beacon used? (network/data link)

second question

when any node want to send a beacon, that node must sense for free channel before sending. thus many nodes want to send the beacon at the same time. do each node have to wait for free channel?

third question

if this routing send beacon more frequently, it will use more bandwidth ??

sincerely

pakorn k.

Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. --0-1642056087-1103795438=:32149-- --===============1975843311== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============1975843311==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 23 05:37:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA25345 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:37:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChQVh-0006nB-9F for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:47:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChQIo-0001Ww-Ss; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:34:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChQFE-0000dW-KA for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:30:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA25120 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:30:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from swing.cefriel.it ([131.175.53.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChQP5-0006dC-Hu for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:41:08 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [manet] beaconning in manet Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:30:58 +0100 Message-ID: <9F1223587A755D47805AECAB7ECAF5D901C108CE@swing.cefriel.it> Thread-Topic: [manet] beaconning in manet Thread-Index: AcTo2NOR907mJRuJS9Wvxf7jIEuYhAAAFiGQ From: "Giorgio Mulas" To: "pakorn kulsirimongkol" , X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 311e798ce51dbeacf5cdfcc8e9fda21b X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1465663791==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e367d58950869b6582535ddf5a673488 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1465663791== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4E8DA.7EACAA5E" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4E8DA.7EACAA5E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear pakorn k. =20 first answer: network layer. Beaconing is part of the routing mechanism. =20 second answer: sensing channel is a typical MAC operation, even if it depends on the = particular MAC you are using. In CSMA-like MAC, transmission of frames = is successful only if they don't collide on the channel: then you MUST = send layer-2 frames only on free channels. =20 third answer: of course. Determining the best trade-off between frequency of beaconing = (this impacts on a better control over network topology -> critical = especially in highly dynamic networks) and consumed bandwidth is an = important issue that is related to the scenario you are considering. =20 br. =20 Giorgio =20 ------------------------------------------ Giorgio Mulas | Researcher CEFRIEL =AD Politecnico di Milano Via Fucini, 2 =B7 20133 Milano (Italy) p. +39 02 23954 265 f. +39 02 23954 465 e. giorgio.mulas@cefriel.it -----Original Message----- From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of pakorn kulsirimongkol Sent: gioved=EC 23 dicembre 2004 10.51 To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] beaconning in manet Dear, sir i am researching in ah hoc network and have been confused = something. in link state routing protocol use beaconning for declaring its position = . any node which receive beacon can know its neighbor. my question=20 first question what layer is beacon used? (network/data link) =20 second question when any node want to send a beacon, that node must sense for free = channel before sending. thus many nodes want to send the beacon at the = same time. do each node have to wait for free channel? =20 third question if this routing send beacon more frequently, it will use more bandwidth = ?? =20 sincerely =20 pakorn k. _____ =20 Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do = = good. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4E8DA.7EACAA5E Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Dear pakorn k.

first=20 answer:

network=20 layer. Beaconing is part of the routing mechanism.

second=20 answer:

sensing=20 channel is a typical MAC operation, even if it depends on the = particular=20 MAC you are using. In CSMA-like MAC, transmission of frames is = successful only=20 if they don't collide on the channel: then you MUST send layer-2 frames = only on=20 free channels.

third=20 answer:

of course.=20 Determining the best trade-off between frequency of beaconing (this = impacts on a=20 better control over network topology -> critical especially in highly = dynamic=20 networks) and consumed bandwidth is an important issue that is = related to=20 the scenario you are considering.

br.

Giorgio

------------------------------------------
Giorgio = Mulas |=20 Researcher

CEFRIEL Politecnico di Milano
Via Fucini, 2 = =B7 20133=20 Milano (Italy)

p. +39 02 23954 265
f. +39 02 23954 465
e.=20 giorgio.mulas@cefriel.it

-----Original Message-----
From:=20 manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = pakorn kulsirimongkol
Sent: gioved=EC 23 dicembre 2004=20 10.51
To: manet@ietf.org
Subject: [manet] = beaconning in=20 manet

Dear, sir

i am=20 researching in ah hoc network and have been = confused something.

in link state routing protocol use beaconning=20 for declaring its position . any node which receive = beacon can=20 know its neighbor.

my question

first question

what layer is beacon used? (network/data link)

second question

when any node want to send a beacon, that node must sense = for free=20 channel before sending. thus many nodes want to send the beacon at the = same=20 time. do each node have to wait for free channel?

third question

if this routing send beacon more frequently, it will use more=20 bandwidth ??

sincerely

pakorn k.

Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do=20 good. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4E8DA.7EACAA5E-- --===============1465663791== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============1465663791==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 23 12:04:56 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28703 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:04:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChWYU-0001CT-4k for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:15:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChWF7-0001fx-JQ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:55:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChW7x-000783-3I; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:47:49 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27493; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:47:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200412231647.LAA27493@ietf.org> From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce@ietf.org Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:47:45 -0500 Cc: Ian Chakeres , manet@ietf.org, Joseph Macker Subject: [manet] WG Review: Recharter of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet) X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 A modified charter has been submitted for the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet) working group in the Routing Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following description was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by December 30th. +++ Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet) =================================== Current Status: Active Working Group Description of Working Group: The purpose of the MANET working group is to standardize IP routing protocol functionality suitable for wireless routing application within both static and dynamic topologies with increased dynamics due to node motion or other factors. Approaches are intended to be relatively lightweight in nature, suitable for multiple hardware and wireless environments, and address scenarios where MANETs are deployed at the edges of an IP infrastructure. Hybrid mesh infrastructures (e.g., a mixture of fixed and mobile routers) should also be supported by MANET specifications and management features. Using mature components from previous work on experimental reactive and proactive protocols, the WG will develop two Standards track routing protocol specifications: - Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP) - Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP) If significant commonality between RMRP and PMRP protocol modules is observed, the WG may decide to go with a converged approach. Both IPv4 and IPv6 will be supported. Routing security requirements and issues will also be addressed. The MANET WG will also develop a scoped forwarding protocol that can efficiently flood data packets to all participating MANET nodes. The primary purpose of this mechanism is a simplified best effort multicast forwarding function. The use of this protocol is intended to be applied ONLY within MANET routing areas and the WG effort will be limited to routing layer design issues. The MANET WG will pay attention to the OSPF-MANET protocol work within the OSPF WG and IRTF work that is addressing research topics related to MANET environments. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 23 13:38:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06498 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:38:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChY1E-0003Y6-PJ for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:49:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChXje-0007rD-9H; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:30:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChXeY-0006Vm-SJ for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:25:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05865 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:25:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from web52404.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.39.112]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChXoT-0003Hj-Ju for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:35:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 95821 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Dec 2004 18:25:00 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=G8n36E10i+gxtKKstrjM0vkRwL7KAQZWPNIwC3FbBYcDPr73nYPHIal7lhutXNOGZ/Kagy0UihxhFhBU1tmZC5qSVfKTak2PzZVLuxkff7/V1l6Kv1wAhWvXVziSS/5H8Vz7lPgz7thfCpRJAyYfQ7rZJGwprzyCzRqQsBff2yc= ; Message-ID: <20041223182500.95806.qmail@web52404.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [61.2.164.101] by web52404.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:25:00 PST Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:25:00 -0800 (PST) From: debkanta chakraborty To: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200412231647.LAA27493@ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Subject: [manet] wanna unsubscribe from grp MANET X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0176358133==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f --===============0176358133== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-611551031-1103826300=:92151" --0-611551031-1103826300=:92151 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sir , I want to unsubscribe from your group . --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. --0-611551031-1103826300=:92151 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Sir , I want to unsubscribe from your group .

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. --0-611551031-1103826300=:92151-- --===============0176358133== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============0176358133==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 23 15:15:37 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16146 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChZX1-00065B-K7 for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:25:55 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChZJ9-0001Qp-En; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:11:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChZ86-0007Ig-Sz for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:00:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14533 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu ([128.8.129.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChZI3-0005mV-Be for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:10:27 -0500 Received: from MINDLAP2 (176-155.mam.umd.edu [129.2.176.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id iBNJxdOc005013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:59:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200412231959.iBNJxdOc005013@carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu> From: "Moustafa Youssef" To: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:58:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcTpKbeSIAP4iO5ORVCk9GbHvZ0Hxg== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] CFP: IEEE WirelessCom Symposium on Mobile Computing, 2005 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (Our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP) ------------------------------------------------------------- Call for Papers Symposium on Mobile Computing http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~younis/WC_MobCom05.htm as part of IEEE WirelessCom 2005 Sheraton Maui Resort, Kaanapali Beach, Maui, Hawaii, USA http://www.ece.queensu.ca/hpages/faculty/safwat/wirelesscom/05/ June 13-16, 2005 Technical Sponsorship: IEEE TCCC, TCPC, and SSCTC Recent years have witnessed an enormous growth in the development and applications of mobile computing environments and devices. Many practitioners envision a future empowered with context and location aware computation and communication infrastructure that allow users to access data and receive service at any place and any time. Compared to conventional platforms, the mobility of computing nodes introduces many challenges to the design of almost all systems components. This symposium will foster a forum for discussing and presenting recent research results on mobile computer systems. Original papers are invited in the broader area of mobile computing. Papers must report high-quality and previously unpublished work. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: - Architecture and infrastructure support - Middleware and operating systems services - Development platforms and environments - Adaptive resource management schemes - Pervasive and Context-aware Computing - Performance metrics and studies - Power aware computation and communication - Data consistency and synchronization protocols - Fault-tolerant architectural and operation models - Wearable computing devices and systems - Time constrained mobile systems - Robust ad-hoc networking techniques - Efficient localization techniques - Wireless sensor networks - Mobile peer to peer systems - Quality of service provisioning - Context-conscious computing - Web caching and services - Emerging applications and systems - Mobile agents - Mobile commerce - Security and privacy issues Submission Guidelines --------------------- Prospective authors should submit their paper electronically to younis@csee.umbc.edu. All papers are limited to 6 pages in MS-Word, PS or PDF using standard IEEE double-column format. The first page should include title, authors' contact information, an abstract and five keywords. Authors should attach the paper abstract to their message. Important Dates --------------- Paper Submission Deadline: March 15, 2005 Notification of Acceptance: April 15, 2005 Camera-Ready Papers: May 1, 2005 Symposium Co-Chairs ------------------- Mohamed Younis Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering University of Maryland Baltimore County, E-mail: younis@csee.umbc.edu Hesham El-Rewini Department of Computer Science and Engineering Southern Methodist University E-mail: rewini@engr.smu.edu Publicity Chair ---------------- Moustafa Youssef Department of Computer Science University of Maryland at College Park, E-mail: moustafa@cs.umd.edu _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 23 23:02:30 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26947 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:02:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Chgov-00012u-6S for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:12:54 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChgcM-0001KC-9K; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:59:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChgZL-0000BG-0B for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:56:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26671 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from web52404.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.39.112]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChgjK-0000y1-E6 for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:07:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 41347 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Dec 2004 03:56:14 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=6TFpa4SkLvtLZ81fnalp9eoa/brTuYz88WD0whUw8ozCecUKzGh5nbomcB54Fi1R33fo3bVi0XJ05NgGegRqLS8TpUJ02GJ34DscRBeqsZ3CWZ9tUd1S4Th+yWWQC0Ql8igZYa7z0Bo1EUKbJihdJOwitUCRySUumbazn/SOe6U= ; Message-ID: <20041224035614.41344.qmail@web52404.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [61.2.164.107] by web52404.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:56:14 PST Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:56:14 -0800 (PST) From: debkanta chakraborty To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Subject: [manet] (no subject) X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0193132057==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 --===============0193132057== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-530213798-1103860574=:37093" --0-530213798-1103860574=:37093 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sir, I want to unsubscribe from your group,pls. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --0-530213798-1103860574=:37093 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Sir,

I want to unsubscribe from your group,pls.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com --0-530213798-1103860574=:37093-- --===============0193132057== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============0193132057==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 24 01:48:30 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA07122 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:48:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChjPZ-0003rs-4k for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:58:53 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChjDr-00039p-7O; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:46:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Chj8g-0000f2-BF for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:41:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06958 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:41:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns.ustc.edu.cn ([202.38.64.1] helo=mx1.ustc.edu.cn) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChjIg-0003me-IH for manet@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:51:48 -0500 Received: from hupeng (infonet.ipv6.ustc.edu.cn [202.38.75.75]) by mx1.ustc.edu.cn (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id iBO6QYa12890 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:26:34 +0800 Message-Id: <200412240626.iBO6QYa12890@mx1.ustc.edu.cn> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:38:15 +0800 From: "hupeng" To: "manet" X-mailer: Foxmail 5.0 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] partition in MANET X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I am starting to do some research on the partition in MANET. Is there some good or new articles can be recommended? TIA. Merry xmas! Kevin _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 24 04:56:37 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA01202 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:56:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChmLf-0006wF-Hz for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 05:07:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Chm9I-00064M-Tg; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:54:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Chm86-0005w0-Nr; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:53:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA00979; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:52:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [137.204.56.4] (helo=evaristo.deis.unibo.it) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChmI8-0006qW-0C; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 05:03:26 -0500 Received: from deis.unibo.it (promet2.deis.unibo.it [137.204.59.2]) by evaristo.deis.unibo.it (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id iBO9p3Pl015390; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:51:03 +0100 Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:51:03 -0000 To: , "The IESG" , Subject: Re: [manet] WG Review: Recharter of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet) From: X-Mailer: TWIG 2.8.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200412231647.LAA27493@ietf.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4 Cc: Ian Chakeres , manet@ietf.org, Joseph Macker X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a hi all, IMHO it the MANET charter should amplify its scope to address multicast. best regards and merry xmas! Dario The IESG said: > A modified charter has been submitted for the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet) > working group in the Routing Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any > determination as yet. The following description was submitted, and is > provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to > the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by December 30th. > > +++ > > Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet) > =================================== > > Current Status: Active Working Group > > Description of Working Group: > > The purpose of the MANET working group is to standardize IP routing protocol > functionality suitable for wireless routing application within both static > and dynamic topologies with increased dynamics due to node motion or other > factors. > > Approaches are intended to be relatively lightweight in nature, suitable for > multiple hardware and wireless environments, and address scenarios where > MANETs are deployed at the edges of an IP infrastructure. Hybrid mesh > infrastructures (e.g., a mixture of fixed and mobile routers) should also be > supported by MANET specifications and management features. > > Using mature components from previous work on experimental reactive and > proactive protocols, the WG will develop two Standards track routing > protocol > specifications: > > - Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP) > - Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP) > > If significant commonality between RMRP and PMRP protocol modules is > observed, the WG may decide to go with a converged approach. Both IPv4 and > IPv6 will be supported. Routing security requirements and issues will also > be addressed. > > The MANET WG will also develop a scoped forwarding protocol that can > efficiently flood data packets to all participating MANET nodes. The primary > purpose of this mechanism is a simplified best effort multicast forwarding > function. The use of this protocol is intended to be applied ONLY within > MANET routing areas and the WG effort will be limited to routing layer > design issues. > > The MANET WG will pay attention to the OSPF-MANET protocol work within the > OSPF WG and IRTF work that is addressing research topics related to MANET > environments. > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > -- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 24 09:57:20 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20250 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Chr2j-0004SZ-K3 for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:07:49 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Chqmk-0007qs-8W; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:51:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChqmG-0007jj-Rl for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:50:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19932 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:50:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20926.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.224.143]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChqwM-0004L3-02 for manet@irtf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:01:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 12680 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Dec 2004 14:50:43 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=AE1vgDOiLPvLTXHxGE9h/oLbVbaGJxQkK/79ZKYxEV8/g/3oX6uxnxoR9hOR3iYwfN0+a+/nwEqTLnevAxT9lE9q8GhPgUdGzUKP4ln+ofYwDP/AeexpCfdWdknjImHFJ5sYz7FpO8nYrcbAwA1jE6bip6Yt4D20NLnxLBhS8HY= ; Message-ID: <20041224145043.12678.qmail@web20926.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.145.191.90] by web20926.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:50:43 PST Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:50:43 -0800 (PST) From: Praveen Choudary To: manet@irtf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Subject: [manet] Research in WSN X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0946382352==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa --===============0946382352== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1434306304-1103899843=:11650" --0-1434306304-1103899843=:11650 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, I want to know if there are any publications in Wireless Sensor Networks which propose an Energy efficient QoS routing protocol where all the nodes have same capability and the network is homogeneous. If anybody came across such a publication, kindly give me its reference. Waiting for your reply, Praveen. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. --0-1434306304-1103899843=:11650 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Hi,

I want to know if there are any publications in Wireless Sensor Networks which propose an Energy efficient QoS routing protocol where all the nodes have same capability and the network is homogeneous.

If anybody came across such a publication, kindly give me its reference.

Waiting for your reply,

Praveen.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. --0-1434306304-1103899843=:11650-- --===============0946382352== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============0946382352==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 24 12:34:26 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00811 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:34:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChtUn-00079f-9I for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:44:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChtFP-0003ej-7B; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:29:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cht9t-0002av-VI for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:23:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00040 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:23:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.194]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChtK1-0006w8-0l for manet@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:33:50 -0500 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id b11so50869rne for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:23:19 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=a9Fj49PLiTIm8FT2pTJjngSe2/WH9gU7jNVohEHHo2yArre+MMs7N5X8dKFnzCu4K8oN1i8UvPXdfsL9EQER0CpPbVVKM6gnRjE2BEC2fPeSxZKQsbRGtW3xq/pNO5W+V89mN64B0nUw1cudtGCxhGBkytPWfPwMBnUTAAn6I4o= Received: by 10.38.98.30 with SMTP id v30mr180759rnb; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:23:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.38.125.9 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:23:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <89f024904122409231ed92a0f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 22:23:19 +0500 From: Usman Gardezi To: manet@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] RE: partition in MANET X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Usman Gardezi List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Take a look at Delay Tolerant Networking (google it), here partitions are "common place". -- ~ Gardezi _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 24 12:43:07 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01699 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:43:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChtdB-0007MH-Oy for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:53:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChtO6-0005LH-F5; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChtHp-00048N-Ni for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:31:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00715 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:31:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from farley3.colorado.edu ([128.138.129.104]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChtRx-000779-La for manet@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:42:02 -0500 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by farley3.Colorado.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10/ITS-6.0/test-webmail) id iBOHVWn1029591 for manet@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:31:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from smct43-141-dhcp.resnet.colorado.edu (smct43-141-dhcp.resnet.colorado.edu [128.138.43.141]) by webmail.colorado.edu (IMP) with HTTP for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:31:32 -0700 Message-ID: <1103909492.41cc527406bc8@webmail.colorado.edu> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:31:32 -0700 From: Sheetalkumar Doshi To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Research in WSN References: <200412241710.iBOHAkPm007545@wopr.Colorado.EDU> In-Reply-To: <200412241710.iBOHAkPm007545@wopr.Colorado.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2-cvs X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Praveen I've been looking at energy efficient QoS routing in MANETs; the core problem of finding a route that satisfies explicit QoS bounds of delay, loss rate and available bandwidth while trying to minimize energy cost of the route is NP complete. "Quality of Service Routing for supporting multimedia applications by Zheng Wang and Jon Crowcroft" in IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL 14, NO. 7, SEPTEMBER 1996 illustrates this well. They show how 2 or more additive constraints make the problem NP complete. Regards Sheetal > Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:50:43 -0800 (PST) > From: Praveen Choudary > Subject: [manet] Research in WSN > To: manet@irtf.org > Message-ID: <20041224145043.12678.qmail@web20926.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi, > I want to know if there are any publications in Wireless Sensor Networks > which propose an Energy efficient QoS routing protocol where all the nodes > have same capability and the network is homogeneous. > > If anybody came across such a publication, kindly give me its reference. > > Waiting for your reply, > Praveen. > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/manet/attachments/20041224/13b380db/attachment.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > End of manet Digest, Vol 8, Issue 26 > ************************************ > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Sat Dec 25 10:34:34 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29071 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CiE6W-0004sf-6m for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:45:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CiDmv-0005ff-EQ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:25:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CiDlW-0005RI-EB for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:23:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28453 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:23:32 -0500 (EST) From: lavecchc@eurecom.fr Received: from smtp.eurecom.fr ([193.55.113.210]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CiDvp-0004eF-UT for manet@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:34:14 -0500 Received: from thorgal.eurecom.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.eurecom.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iBPFMs2E009641 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:22:55 +0100 (CET) Received: (from noaccess@localhost) by thorgal.eurecom.fr (8.12.1/8.12.1) id iBPFMrDe010221 for manet@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:22:53 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: thorgal.eurecom.fr: noaccess set sender to lavecchc@eurecom.fr using -f Received: from d83-176-9-101.cust.tele2.it (d83-176-9-101.cust.tele2.it [83.176.9.101]) by webmail.eurecom.fr (IMP) with HTTP for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:22:53 +0100 Message-ID: <1103988173.41cd85cd3f803@webmail.eurecom.fr> Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:22:53 +0100 To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 83.176.9.101 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by smtp.eurecom.fr id iBPFMs2E009641 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [manet] 802.11, MANETs and mesh networks? X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello to the MANET community and merry XMAS to you all.=20 When the holidays will be over, I would like to open a discussion on a su= bject that is not 100% related to MANETs but could still interest some of you.=20 I assume that 802.11 is the standard that has won the market for wireless= LAN applications.=20 Now, in my vision, one of the future developments of wireless networks i= n the close future is the cooperation of MANETs and wireless mesh networks.=20 Wireless mesh networks are networks that are essentially composed by mobi= le and fixed wireless nodes: the fixed nodes are used to cover a local area. The benefit of mesh architecture is that if that we add fault and congestion tolerance by using redudancy of nodes. In other words, a dense mesh network that runs self-organizing routing pr= otocols and self organizing congestion-avoidance protocols, will re-route traffi= c to avoid broken links and congested nodes.=20 Mesh networks will allow to extend MANETs, because two farway mobile node= s will be able to connect to each other by using the mesh network nodes. In this scenario, two close mobile nodes will connect tdirectly without p= assing throuhg any mesh network node. Now the question is: is this possible using 802.11 standard? In my opini= on the answer in NO because in 802.11 a device can be EITHER in Ad-hoc OR in infrastructure mode. To my knowledge, in 802.11 two access points cannot = connect to each other using wireless connection or at least this is not possible= in a standard configuration.=20 Am I right? Am I missing something? for comparison, you could check the M= EA technology by a company named MeshNetworks, recently bought by Motorola (www.meshnetworks.com). Thanks for your answers and merry XMAS again=A7 Claudio=20 ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through Institut Eurecom Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.f= r _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 28 00:07:28 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08808 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cj9kp-0006X5-Se for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:18:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cj9Pz-0001C6-VM; Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:57:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cj9Lu-0008Oi-4w for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:52:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07903 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:52:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20923.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.224.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cj9Wk-0006C9-CI for manet@irtf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:04:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 28623 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Dec 2004 04:52:56 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=kmK54XjKioAoca/on+xMVS2nIyHLmXhaeK/z/X4QGyvz/AWC9fNumJCoRbi1ISWjVouUReP3WaN+ZSypDh/859X4FNZHGfIoGiY6sxW4JO4Ql8j1MuRimiVkSnSozkmajICntMRmqEV/e6cN30MS6CCa6Z8/OM356MMZ51EBIe0= ; Message-ID: <20041228045255.28621.qmail@web20923.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [202.91.72.245] by web20923.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:52:55 PST Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:52:55 -0800 (PST) From: Praveen Choudary To: manet@irtf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Subject: [manet] Research in WSN X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2015349688==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 --===============2015349688== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1495027426-1104209575=:27962" --0-1495027426-1104209575=:27962 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, I am doing research Independently. I have studied publications in routing aspects of wireless sensor networks (WSN). To the best of my knowledge I have developed an idea and I want to know the comments of researchers and scientists working in this area. There are many publications in QoS aspects of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. These algorithms cannot be directly applied to WSN. There is a good scope for research in QoS aspects of WSN. My interest is in developing "Energy efficient QoS routing protocol for wireless sensor networks". I am assuming there is a mix of both real time and non real time packets. I am not using location based routing protocol. Let us get into the details of idea. The existing algorithms try to find out energy efficient QoS path for all the packets. I mean the routing path is same for both the real time and non real time packets. I want to try a different approach. The routing path should be different for real time packets and non real time packets. For non real time packets the routing path is calculated completely ignoring QoS criteria and for real time packets the routing path is calculated using both energy and QoS parameters. You may feel this approach may increase overhead. My algorithm uses the same mechanism for calculating both paths with out much overhead. Also my algorithm uses only local information and achieves global optimization. The algorithm is flexible and the routing paths are calculated dynamically. Initially the nodes will trade off energy for hard real time packets and later when the energy reserves falls below a certian level the nodes gradually decrease trading off energy fo! r Real time packets. I have a feeling that my approach is better than the existing techniques. I request the members in this group to give their comments and tell me if this can be explored futher. If possible suggest me some improvements. Let us get into the new year with some new ideas. Waiting for your comments, Praveen. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. --0-1495027426-1104209575=:27962 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Hi,

I am doing research Independently. I have studied publications in routing aspects of wireless sensor networks (WSN). To the best of my knowledge I have developed an idea and I want to know the comments of researchers and scientists working in this area.

There are many publications in QoS aspects of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. These algorithms cannot be directly applied to WSN. There is a good scope for research in QoS aspects of WSN. My interest is in developing "Energy efficient QoS routing protocol for wireless sensor networks". I am assuming there is a mix of both real time and non real time packets. I am not using location based routing protocol.

Let us get into the details of idea. The existing algorithms try to find out energy efficient QoS path for all the packets. I mean the routing path is same for both the real time and non real time packets. I want to try a different approach. The routing path should be different for real time packets and non real time packets. For non real time packets the routing path is calculated completely ignoring QoS criteria and for real time packets the routing path is calculated using both energy and QoS parameters. You may feel this approach may increase overhead. My algorithm uses the same mechanism for calculating both paths with out much overhead. Also my algorithm uses only local information and achieves global optimization. The algorithm is flexible and the routing paths are calculated dynamically. Initially the nodes will trade off energy for hard real time packets and later when the energy reserves falls below a certian level the nodes gradually decrease tradin! g off energy for Real time packets.

I have a feeling that my approach is better than the existing techniques. I request the members in this group to give their comments and tell me if this can be explored futher. If possible suggest me some improvements. Let us get into the new year with some new ideas.

Waiting for your comments,

Praveen.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. --0-1495027426-1104209575=:27962-- --===============2015349688== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============2015349688==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 28 06:19:37 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA16077 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:19:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjFZ1-000789-44 for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:30:56 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjFJK-00039P-3J; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:14:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjFAh-0000Qz-Q9 for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:05:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA15022 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:05:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from web21003.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.227.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjFLb-0006ji-Ao for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:17:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 25622 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Dec 2004 11:05:43 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=2a9WoNQJtKbx8zdhvAhXMJGkOPqfGKuThM0ye3FbtNBUB5XOU1mL39SwN0d7ju18lh9rczUtNvxlhQr/5xjPPi4qAcmDmNupunY+aAQvRZyW71UWZyrmvkDiOUckGo2AscpE/nixxozxz9Zom9yqqxJsitQQAln8pEjufIM53sY= ; Message-ID: <20041228110543.25620.qmail@web21003.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.4.228.237] by web21003.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 03:05:43 PST Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 03:05:43 -0800 (PST) From: Yang Xiao To: itc@comsoc.org, manet@ietf.org, performance@merlot.usc.edu In-Reply-To: <20041228110300.49471.qmail@web21005.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 42e3ed3f10a1d8bef690f09da16f507a Subject: [manet] International Symposium on Wireless Local and Personal Area Networks in WirelessCom 2005 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: yangxiao@ieee.org List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d2b46e3b2dfbff2088e0b72a54104985 We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this CFP =============== Call For Papers International Symposium on Wireless Local and Personal Area Networks (part of WirelessCom 2005) URL: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~ehab/WirelessCom2005-WLANs-WPANs/ Sheraton Maui Resort, Kaanapali Beach, Maui, Hawaii, USA June 13-16th, 2005 Scope and Topics of Interest Original papers are invited on emerging architectures and technologies in the design of wireless local area networks (WLANs) and wireless personal area networks (WPANs) with emphasis on the use of such networks in diverse areas of applications such as supporting ubiquitous mobile Internet access, and the design of ad-hoc networks, and sensor networks. The symposium solicits high quality and previously unpublished work in the field. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: Medium access techniques and protocols for WLANs/WPANs Emerging standards and testbeds for WLANs/WPANs WLANs/WPANs protocols for smart antennas Energy efficiency in protocol and systems design Resource assignment and sharing in WLANs/WPANs Self configuration in WLANs/WPANs Provisioning quality of service in WLANs/WPANs Multimedia networking architectures and protocols for WLANs/WPANs Integration and interoperability of WLANs/WPANs and 3G (and beyond) networks Interoperability issues between wireless standards/protocols and the Internet User mobility and workload modeling Security issues in WLANs/WPANs Paper Submission and Important Dates Please see the WirelessCom'05 submission page for guidelines. Note that all papers are limited to six pages, and must be in standard IEEE double-column format. All submissions will be handled electronically and must be in PDF format. The conference has designated best papers awards. Manuscript Submission: March 15, 2005 Acceptance Notification: April 15, 2005 Camera-Ready Papers Due: May 1, 2005 Organizing Committee Symposium Co-Chairs Ehab S. Elmallah Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada, T6G 2E8 ehab@cs.ualberta.ca Yang Xiao Computer Science Division The University of Memphis, 373 Dunn Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA yangxiao@ieee.org Publicity Co-Chairs Kui Wu Department of Computer Science University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia Canada V8W 3P6 wkui@cs.uvic.ca Vincent Wong Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The University of British Columbia 2356 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4 vincentw@ece.ubc.ca Technical Program Committee Imad Aad, EPFL, Switzerland Giuseppe Bianchi, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Italy Azzedine Boukerche, SITE, University of Ottawa, Canada Jiannong Cao, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Liang Cheng, Lehigh University, USA Sunghyun Choi, Seoul National University, Korea Jing Deng, University of New Orleans, USA Christos Douligeris, University of Piraeus, Greece Xiaojiang (James) Du, North Dakota State University, USA Nelson Fonseca, State University of Campinas, Brazil Xingang Guo, Intel, USA Janelle Harms, University of Alberta, Canada Ekram Hossain, University of Manitoba, Canada Antonio Iera, University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria, Italy Weijia Jia, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Xiaohua Jia, City University of Hong Kong , Hong Kong Victor Leung, University of British Columbia, Canada Haizhon Li, University of Memphis, USA Jiangchuan Liu, Simon Fraser University, Canada Xiang-Yang Li, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA Mike MacGregor, University of Alberta, Canada Jelena Misic, University of Manitoba, Canada Vojislav B Misic, University of Manitoba, Canada Qiang Ni, National University of Ireland, Ireland Jianping Pan, NTT MCL, USA Yi Qian, University of Puerto Rico, USA Daji Qiao, Iowa State University, USA Bo Sun, Lamar University, USA Ilenia Tinnirello, University of Palermo, Italy Dimitrios Vergados, University of the Aegean, Greece Lan Wang, University of Memphis, USA Li-Chun Wang, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan Wenye Wang, North Carolina State University, USA Xudong Wang, Kiyon Inc., USA Yu Wang, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA Vincent Wong, University of British Columbia, Canada Haitao Wu, Microsoft Research, China Hongyi Wu, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA Jie Wu, Florida Atlantic University , USA Kui Wu, University of Victoria, Canada Surong Zeng, Motorola, USA Hao Zhu, Florida International University, USA Ting-Yu Lin, National Chiao-Tung University, Taiwan Daqing Gu, MERL, USA _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 28 10:45:50 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05985 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:45:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjJih-0005fp-3f for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:57:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjJQX-0001AI-OX; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:38:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjJKk-0008Mb-E0 for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:32:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04929 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from pop3.ajou.ac.kr ([202.30.0.18] helo=mail.ajou.ac.kr) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjJVg-0005JS-2J for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:43:44 -0500 Received: from spam.ajou.ac.kr ([202.30.0.9]) by maru (Crinity Message Backbone-2.6.23.1) with SMTP ID 427; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:32:47 +0900 (KST) Message-ID: <01a501c4ecf2$98f21820$bbcb6bd2@ajoudayhakyu> From: Faisal Adeem Siddiqui To: manet@ietf.org Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:33:35 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Cc: manetautoconf@ml.free.fr Subject: [manet] using IPv6 addresses in MANET X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1210693940==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1210693940== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A2_01C4ED3E.07F9C060" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01A2_01C4ED3E.07F9C060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi all, When two MANETs merge, IP address conflicts can occur. If any node = changes its address then problems like broken routing fabrics and broken = on going communications occur. I am wondering if MANETs use IPv6 = addresses (since IPv6 addresses are based on MAC addresses and are = therefore unique), these problems will not occur ? Or there can be = situations when even IPv6 addresses will conflict ?=20 Faisal. ------=_NextPart_000_01A2_01C4ED3E.07F9C060 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

hi all,

When two MANETs merge, IP = address=20 conflicts can occur. If any node changes its address then problems like = broken=20 routing fabrics and broken on going communications occur. I am wondering = if=20 MANETs use IPv6 addresses (since IPv6 addresses are based on MAC = addresses=20 and are therefore unique), these problems will not occur ? Or = there=20 can be situations when even IPv6 addresses will conflict ?

Faisal.

------=_NextPart_000_01A2_01C4ED3E.07F9C060-- --===============1210693940== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============1210693940==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 28 11:19:27 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07753 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:19:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjKFD-0006Xu-RF for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:30:49 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjJyw-0008Lt-V5; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:13:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjJur-0007Wh-25 for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:09:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07363 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:09:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from sitemail3.everyone.net ([216.200.145.37] helo=omta06.mta.everyone.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjK5n-0006K6-GT for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:21:03 -0500 Received: from sitemail.everyone.net (bigiplb-dsnat [172.16.0.19]) by omta06.mta.everyone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176113FA2D for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 08:09:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by sitemail.everyone.net (Postfix, from userid 99) id 8E8467263; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 08:09:32 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 08:09:32 -0800 (PST) From: venkata sivannarayana muppalla To: manet@ietf.org X-Originating-Ip: [210.212.228.8] X-Eon-Sig: AQH7p09B0YU8AAYnygEAAAAB,2978724e466daf48caa804a84606305e Message-Id: <20041228160932.8E8467263@sitemail.everyone.net> X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Subject: [manet] cluster based routing protocol X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: muppalla999@ragalahari.com List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1262465171==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 --===============1262465171== Content-Type: text/html Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi all

i am working on cluster based routing protocol.please let me know where can i get the NS implementation of the protocol.

thanks in advance

Thanks & Regards
M.V.Sivannarayana

Be great in act, as you are in thought

Listen to Non Stop Music @ http://www.ragalahari.com
--===============1262465171== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============1262465171==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 28 11:33:15 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08466 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:33:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjKSa-0006rG-Tn for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:44:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjKFS-0002vw-Ad; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:31:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjK0F-0000HH-Ar for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:15:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07578 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:15:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from anyida.tts.lth.se ([130.235.18.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjKBB-0006RQ-Jw for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:26:38 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.19] (lina23.tts.lth.se [130.235.18.83]) by anyida.tts.lth.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07688; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:14:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <41D186C9.8000702@telecom.lth.se> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:16:09 +0100 From: Ali Hamidian User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040805 Netscape/7.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Faisal Adeem Siddiqui Subject: Re: [manet] using IPv6 addresses in MANET References: <01a501c4ecf2$98f21820$bbcb6bd2@ajoudayhakyu> In-Reply-To: <01a501c4ecf2$98f21820$bbcb6bd2@ajoudayhakyu> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: b2809b6f39decc6de467dcf252f42af1 Cc: manet@ietf.org, manetautoconf@ml.free.fr X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1838068688==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 789c141a303c09204b537a4078e2a63f This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1838068688== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020007020609090106000002" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020007020609090106000002 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Faisal, In "MANETconf: Configuration of Hosts in a Mobile Ad Hoc Network" (Section III.C - Hardware-based Addressing) the authors list five points to why using IPv6 addresses+Ehternet addresses is not a good idea: 1. MANET nodes are not restricted to using network interface cards (NICs) with 48-bit IEEE-assigned uniqueMAC addresses. In fact, the TCP/IP protocol stack should work on a variety of data-link layer implementations. So, if this approach is employed, specific implementations would be required for each type of hardware. What if the underlying data-link layer solutions corresponds to GSM, Bluetooth, etc.? 2. For some data-link layer solutions the interface cards do not have unique addresses. 3. It is possible to change the MAC address of cards, either by reprogramming the EEPROM in which the address is stored or through commands like ifconfig. So, uniqueness of MAC addresses cannot be guaranteed. 4. There are known instances of multiple NIC cards from the same vendor having the same MAC address. 5. With hardware-based addressing the identity of a node can be easily determined from its IP address. This raises concerns about privacy. Regards Ali Faisal Adeem Siddiqui wrote: > hi all, > When two MANETs merge, IP address conflicts can occur. If any node > changes its address then problems like broken routing fabrics and > broken on going communications occur. I am wondering if MANETs use > IPv6 addresses (since IPv6 addresses are based on MAC addresses and > are therefore unique), these problems will not occur ? Or there can be > situations when even IPv6 addresses will conflict ? > > Faisal. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >manet mailing list >manet@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > --------------020007020609090106000002 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Faisal,

In "MANETconf: Configuration of Hosts in a Mobile Ad Hoc Network" (Section III.C - Hardware-based Addressing) the authors list five points to why using IPv6 addresses+Ehternet addresses is not a good idea:

1. MANET nodes are not restricted to using network interface cards (NICs) with 48-bit IEEE-assigned uniqueMAC addresses. In fact, the TCP/IP protocol stack should work on a variety of data-link layer implementations. So, if this approach is employed, specific implementations would be required for each type of hardware. What if the underlying data-link layer solutions corresponds to GSM, Bluetooth, etc.?

2. For some data-link layer solutions the interface cards do not have unique addresses.

3. It is possible to change the MAC address of cards, either by reprogramming the EEPROM in which the address is stored or through commands like ifconfig. So, uniqueness of MAC addresses cannot be guaranteed.

4. There are known instances of multiple NIC cards from the same vendor having the same MAC address.

5. With hardware-based addressing the identity of a node can be easily determined from its IP address. This raises concerns about privacy.

Regards
Ali

Faisal Adeem Siddiqui wrote:

hi all,

When two MANETs merge, IP address conflicts can occur. If any node changes its address then problems like broken routing fabrics and broken on going communications occur. I am wondering if MANETs use IPv6 addresses (since IPv6 addresses are based on MAC addresses and are therefore unique), these problems will not occur ? Or there can be situations when even IPv6 addresses will conflict ?

Faisal.
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
  

--------------020007020609090106000002-- --===============1838068688== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============1838068688==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 29 04:56:10 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23950 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:56:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cjak0-0001TH-RZ for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:07:41 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjaWI-0004WK-L2; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:53:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjaSr-0003oh-BT for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:49:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23583 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:49:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from swing.cefriel.it ([131.175.53.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cjadw-0001I2-VN for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:01:25 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [manet] 802.11, MANETs and mesh networks? Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:49:58 +0100 Message-ID: <9F1223587A755D47805AECAB7ECAF5D901C10A6C@swing.cefriel.it> Thread-Topic: [manet] 802.11, MANETs and mesh networks? Thread-Index: AcTql38NJ15AdLjxQ068uWHKhOFligC7nODw From: "Giorgio Mulas" To: , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5ebbf074524e58e662bc8209a6235027 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3a4bc66230659131057bb68ed51598f8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Claudio, hi all, and happy xmas holidays, I agree with you when you depict a meshnetworking/ubiquitous computing = future, but I have some considerations about the second part of your = intervention. First of all, I think that ad hoc networking refers mainly to layer 3 = (not considering cross-layering issues that are layer 1/2 technology = specific). This implies that a MANET could be built for example on = Bluetooth or Zigbee technology if you need only some kilo Bytes or on = WiMax if you need more bandwidth, not just on WiFi. In all these cases = layer 3 issues remains *roughly* the same. =20 Second, in what I call a Lego-like approach you try to adapt existing = mature (except WiMax of course) technologies, that are optimized for a = certain type of architecture, to the ad hoc, and specifically MANET, = architecture. The main advantage of this approach is that products are = already available and "easy to use", but the disadvantage is that you = undergo several trade-offs. In this sense there is no MANET technology. Related to the second consideration, in the short term advantages exceed = disadvantages and then some task or working groups arise in order to = "patch" existing technologies, while R&D centers study on a true MANET = technology. About your last consideration about the use of 802.11 as underlying = technology for MANETs, I suggest you to check the following PARs @ = http://www.ieee802.org/11/PARs/ - 802.11p TGp - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide = Wireless Access for Vehicular Environments =20 - 802.11r TGr - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide Fast = BSS - Transition=20 - 802.11s TGs - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide = Extended Service Set Mesh Networking =20 - 802.11u TGu - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide = Interworking with External Networks=20 That are related to adding mesh networking capabilities to 802.11. Hope this has been useful Best regards Giorgio ------------------------------------------ Giorgio Mulas | Researcher CEFRIEL =AD Politecnico di Milano Via Fucini, 2 =B7 20133 Milano (Italy) p. +39 02 23954 265 f. +39 02 23954 465 e. giorgio.mulas@cefriel.it >=20 >=20 > Hello to the MANET community and merry XMAS to you all.=20 >=20 > When the holidays will be over, I would like to open a=20 > discussion on a subject that is not 100% related to MANETs=20 > but could still interest some of you.=20 >=20 > I assume that 802.11 is the standard that has won the market=20 > for wireless LAN applications.=20 > Now, in my vision, one of the future developments of =20 > wireless networks in the close future is the cooperation of=20 > MANETs and wireless mesh networks.=20 > Wireless mesh networks are networks that are essentially=20 > composed by mobile and fixed wireless nodes: the fixed nodes=20 > are used to cover a local area. The benefit of mesh=20 > architecture is that if that we add fault and congestion=20 > tolerance by using redudancy of nodes. In other words, a=20 > dense mesh network that runs self-organizing routing=20 > protocols and self organizing congestion-avoidance=20 > protocols, will re-route traffic to avoid broken links and=20 > congested nodes.=20 > Mesh networks will allow to extend MANETs, because two farway=20 > mobile nodes will be able to connect to each other by using =20 > the mesh network nodes. In this scenario, two close mobile=20 > nodes will connect tdirectly without passing throuhg any mesh=20 > network node. >=20 > Now the question is: is this possible using 802.11 standard?=20 > In my opinion the answer in NO because in 802.11 a device can=20 > be EITHER in Ad-hoc OR in infrastructure mode. To my=20 > knowledge, in 802.11 two access points cannot connect to each=20 > other using wireless connection or at least this is not=20 > possible in a standard configuration.=20 >=20 > Am I right? Am I missing something? for comparison, you could=20 > check the MEA technology by a company named MeshNetworks,=20 > recently bought by Motorola (www.meshnetworks.com). >=20 > Thanks for your answers and merry XMAS again=A7 >=20 > Claudio=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through Institut Eurecom Webmail:=20 > http://webmail.eurecom.fr >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 29 05:00:22 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24349 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:00:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cjao4-0001Z7-SG for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:11:53 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjaY6-00053l-QR; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:55:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjaWB-0004RV-SC; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:53:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23811; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:53:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from swing.cefriel.it ([131.175.53.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjahH-0001Nb-Ni; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:04:52 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [manet] WG Review: Recharter of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:53:25 +0100 Message-ID: <9F1223587A755D47805AECAB7ECAF5D901C10A6D@swing.cefriel.it> Thread-Topic: [manet] WG Review: Recharter of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet) Thread-Index: AcTpn4RXVd5G05NTTlirnLV3NHixXQD7JQUg From: "Giorgio Mulas" To: , , "The IESG" , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2086112c730e13d5955355df27e3074b Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Ian Chakeres , manet@ietf.org, Joseph Macker X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 22bbb45ef41b733eb2d03ee71ece8243 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, Fully agree with Dario. Multicast! B.r. and happy new year Giorgio=20 ------------------------------------------ Giorgio Mulas | Researcher CEFRIEL =AD Politecnico di Milano Via Fucini, 2 =B7 20133 Milano (Italy) p. +39 02 23954 265 f. +39 02 23954 465 e. giorgio.mulas@cefriel.it > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf Of dbottazzi@deis.unibo.it > Sent: venerd=EC 24 dicembre 2004 10.51 > To: iesg@ietf.org; The IESG; IETF-Announce@ietf.org > Cc: Ian Chakeres; manet@ietf.org; Joseph Macker > Subject: Re: [manet] WG Review: Recharter of Mobile Ad-hoc=20 > Networks (manet) >=20 >=20 >=20 > hi all,=20 > IMHO it the MANET charter should amplify its scope to=20 > address multicast.=20 > =20 > best regards and merry xmas!=20 > Dario >=20 > The IESG said: >=20 > > A modified charter has been submitted for the Mobile Ad-hoc=20 > Networks=20 > > (manet) > > working group in the Routing Area of the IETF. The IESG has=20 > not made any=20 > > determination as yet. The following description was=20 > submitted, and is=20 > > provided for informational purposes only. Please send your=20 > comments to=20 > > the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by December 30th. > >=20 > > +++ > >=20 > > Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet) = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >=20 > > Current Status: Active Working Group > >=20 > > Description of Working Group: > >=20 > > The purpose of the MANET working group is to standardize IP routing=20 > > protocol functionality suitable for wireless routing application=20 > > within both static and dynamic topologies with increased=20 > dynamics due=20 > > to node motion or other factors. > >=20 > > Approaches are intended to be relatively lightweight in nature,=20 > > suitable for multiple hardware and wireless environments,=20 > and address=20 > > scenarios where MANETs are deployed at the edges of an IP=20 > > infrastructure. Hybrid mesh infrastructures (e.g., a=20 > mixture of fixed=20 > > and mobile routers) should also be supported by MANET=20 > specifications=20 > > and management features. > >=20 > > Using mature components from previous work on experimental reactive=20 > > and proactive protocols, the WG will develop two Standards track=20 > > routing protocol > > specifications: > >=20 > > - Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP) > > - Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP) > >=20 > > If significant commonality between RMRP and PMRP protocol=20 > modules is=20 > > observed, the WG may decide to go with a converged=20 > approach. Both IPv4=20 > > and IPv6 will be supported. Routing security requirements=20 > and issues=20 > > will also be addressed. > >=20 > > The MANET WG will also develop a scoped forwarding protocol=20 > that can=20 > > efficiently flood data packets to all participating MANET=20 > nodes. The=20 > > primary purpose of this mechanism is a simplified best effort=20 > > multicast forwarding function. The use of this protocol is=20 > intended to=20 > > be applied ONLY within MANET routing areas and the WG=20 > effort will be=20 > > limited to routing layer design issues. > >=20 > > The MANET WG will pay attention to the OSPF-MANET protocol=20 > work within=20 > > the OSPF WG and IRTF work that is addressing research=20 > topics related=20 > > to MANET environments. > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > >=20 >=20 > --=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From xhncqqidz@harv.ca Wed Dec 29 09:23:15 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11159; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:23:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from dam95.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.23.12.95]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjeuD-00086A-6i; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:34:47 -0500 Received: from baleful [240.206.99.178] (helo=mortgage.manumit.dearriba.com) by smtp2.cistron.nl with esmtp (asterisk 3.35 #1 (juror)) id 925LFL-0004PT-81 Message-ID: <80535403144732.R37444@cozen.noc.apport.gr> Sender: freeradius-devel-xhncqqidz@harv.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:26:04 +0500 From: "Ross Harvey" To: magma-admin@ietf.org Subject: New Year in good health Colette X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Offshore pharm wish you all best in New Year! We will offer you best prices on any meds you need Via gra Cia 1is Va1 ium Xan ax and much more.. Please click below and check out our offer. http://atlantic.hereitgoesoncemore.com/?wid=100069 algaecide eave giraffe sidearm ashmen burglar vivace ethnic booky decile wrapup cabot urbana erasmus annual receptive ethanol defend delicate chorine shanty write prohibitory angular mill decide solstice mispronunciation icosahedra angelic lingua incentive japan kurt xi auditory amphetamine glassware russia doctrinaire liberate neap institute pad synchrotron bloodshed bolo inimical prolusion bottom serious epigram cereal carnal http://alert.hereitgoesoncemore.com/nomore.html From manet-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 29 10:00:59 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14475 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:00:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjfV1-0000pJ-AZ for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:12:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjfHf-0003v1-5N; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:58:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cjf9J-0002BY-5A for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:50:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13689 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:50:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from web61310.mail.yahoo.com ([216.155.196.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjfKQ-0000ZV-Sd for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:01:36 -0500 Received: (qmail 45761 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Dec 2004 14:49:33 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=HPdEupQ9Z72PhJ1ag1DX1nAqZgSTXa248s8iQyDm6AvXpR26DuubXLz8o9qWzXKWvm2J5J08cm/0L4DQPGTrl81qK8MWf4U98XhheffX7SwUqD+Zos2QNA00g5S6t1WmMpIvQ9NSZb/J5uLiRthkA1FSh5YehcrJ59IAOO3ywS4= ; Message-ID: <20041229144932.45759.qmail@web61310.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [137.73.11.9] by web61310.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:49:32 PST Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:49:32 -0800 (PST) From: manet user To: manet@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 Subject: [manet] 802.11b ideal antenna range according to IEEE spec X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2142583266==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca --===============2142583266== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1311899667-1104331772=:45278" --0-1311899667-1104331772=:45278 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Can anyone please let me know the antenna range of 802.11b according to the IEEE spec. Most of the researchers using ns2 use a range of 250 m (which is the default range in ns2), some use 200m and some papers use 300m. Can any anyone please let me know the ideal antenna range of 802.11b according to the spec Regards MU __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --0-1311899667-1104331772=:45278 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Hi all

Can anyone please let me know the antenna range of 802.11b according to the IEEE spec.

Most of the researchers using ns2 use a range of 250 m (which is the default range in ns2), some use 200m and some papers use 300m.

Can any anyone please let me know the ideal antenna range of 802.11b according to the spec

Regards

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com --0-1311899667-1104331772=:45278-- --===============2142583266== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============2142583266==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 29 12:21:51 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25535 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:21:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjhhC-00044S-5i for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:33:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjhTo-0006tG-0f; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:19:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjhCq-00015A-IU for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:01:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23459 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:01:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from web52802.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.39.166]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjhNx-0003Up-HG for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:13:24 -0500 Received: (qmail 78742 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Dec 2004 17:01:18 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=B+C/wblj7K5b7SHl9v1C8XyR4i7QoiUM2jtCWK/8cgKlDTEzLU5/wantuvMOcBM1x4bpKj516YaV5s3xuhFgc1Kpx/fPhxFPXuQkd2cbQH4DzZIk7ADEqmKX+GvZpXYWGTQHJOtw2GWB9LBp6RwLrJGe/8u9Pq9XwS6AidLkYVw= ; Message-ID: <20041229170118.78740.qmail@web52802.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [161.200.255.161] by web52802.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:01:18 PST Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:01:18 -0800 (PST) From: pakorn kulsirimongkol Subject: Re: [manet] 802.11b ideal antenna range according to IEEE spec To: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20041229144932.45759.qmail@web61310.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1765225709==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248 --===============1765225709== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-666206240-1104339678=:77429" --0-666206240-1104339678=:77429 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear, sir I would like to know about these information too.this transmission range , is it maximum of ad hoc card? How many the processing time is used in simulation? how many the time out is used for retransmit any packet again ? sincerely pakorn k. manet user wrote: Hi all Can anyone please let me know the antenna range of 802.11b according to the IEEE spec. Most of the researchers using ns2 use a range of 250 m (which is the default range in ns2), some use 200m and some papers use 300m. Can any anyone please let me know the ideal antenna range of 802.11b according to the spec Regards MU __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --0-666206240-1104339678=:77429 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Dear, sir

I would like to know about these information too.this transmission range , is it maximum of ad hoc card? How many the processing time is used in simulation? how many the time out is used for retransmit any packet again ?

sincerely

pakorn k.

manet user <ietf_manet@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi all

Can anyone please let me know the antenna range of 802.11b according to the IEEE spec.

Most of the researchers using ns2 use a range of 250 m (which is the default range in ns2), some use 200m and some papers use 300m.

Can any anyone please let me know the ideal antenna range of 802.11b according to the spec

Regards

MU

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com --0-666206240-1104339678=:77429-- --===============1765225709== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============1765225709==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 29 13:00:28 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27979 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:00:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjiIk-0004wM-4f for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:12:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cji1m-0005rq-95; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:54:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cjhqw-00047c-Bc for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:43:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26996 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:43:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.scires.com ([64.16.131.4]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cji25-0004ZO-Gp for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:54:50 -0500 Received: from SRCATL-MTA by mail.scires.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:42:36 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:42:11 -0500 From: "Andreas Yankopolus" To: "<" Subject: Re: [manet] 802.11b ideal antenna range according to IEEE spec Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0902927450==" Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9a2be21919e71dc6faef12b370c4ecf5 This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --===============0902927450== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_8BAB159C.50316AE2" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_8BAB159C.50316AE2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-874 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can anyone please let me know the antenna range of 802.11b according to = the IEEE spec. =20 Most of the researchers using ns2 use a range of 250 m (which is the = default range in ns2), some use 200m and some papers use 300m.=20 =20 Can any anyone please let me know the ideal antenna range of 802.11b = according to the spec =20 Picking a fixed range is a gross simplification. The range varies = tremendously with power, antenna type/orientation, bit rate, weather, = terrain, and many other factors. In open terrain, we often closed 1=962 km = links using 7 dBi omni vehicle mount antennas and 20 dBm 802.11b cards = running at 1 or 2 Mbps. =20 Intersil published a great application note some time back on calculating = link budgets, which is the way to go for calculating an ideal range: =20 http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/an9804.pdf=20 =20 Cheers, =20 Andreas --=_8BAB159C.50316AE2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=Windows-874 Content-Description: HTML Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Can anyone please let me = know the=20 antenna range of 802.11b according to the IEEE spec.

Most of the researchers = using ns2=20 use a range of 250 m (which is the default range in ns2), some use 200m = and some=20 papers use 300m.

Can any anyone please let = me know=20 the ideal antenna range of 802.11b according to the spec

Picking a fixed range is a = gross=20 simplification. The range varies tremendously with power, antenna=20 type/orientation, bit rate, weather, terrain, and many other factors. In = open=20 terrain, we often closed 1=962 km links using 7 dBi omni vehicle = mount=20 antennas and 20 dBm 802.11b cards running at 1 or 2 Mbps.

Intersil published a great = application=20 note some time back on calculating link budgets, which is the way to go = for=20 calculating an ideal range:

http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/a= n9804.pdf=20

Cheers,

Andreas

--=_8BAB159C.50316AE2-- --===============0902927450== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --===============0902927450==-- From manet-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 29 13:51:40 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01375 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cjj6I-00063h-L7 for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:03:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjisY-0002SA-Vo; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:49:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cjio7-0001Yy-7l for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:44:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00930 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from web51302.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.168]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjizE-0005qq-Ur for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:56:00 -0500 Received: (qmail 55871 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Dec 2004 18:43:52 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=OGP4jkX2oFbSL0s5jQjv01DyFCJ8Yc0Mqr4incyVw6ZZ+WQqR9p4JjYX6fiOzcx1yDqvlX33OdmTWyyMU4MqSZNWdhFA1DwrXPLdRlIlO3hE8wdD/lxufhW+h8F9ZXjHEfO7ZEoq8BJeAUcXQ17LxnmkOHmtdMfCyvp4dR0iq1E= ; Message-ID: <20041229184352.55869.qmail@web51302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [137.73.11.9] by web51302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:43:52 PST Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:43:52 -0800 (PST) From: dev audsin Subject: Re: [manet] 802.11b ideal antenna range according to IEEE spec To: Andreas Yankopolus , "<" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id NAA00930 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Andreas Thanks for the reply. I understand that the antenna range depends tremendously on factors like power, antenna type/orientation, bit rate, weather, terrain etc.=20 But my question is there any specific ideal range specified in the IEEE 802.11b spec under ideal conditions I am not very familiar with the PHY and sorry for asking very naive ques like this. I searched for the IEEE spec on 802.11b but couldnt find it. Any idea where i can find it. Regards MU --- Andreas Yankopolus wrote: > Can anyone please let me know the antenna range of > 802.11b according to the IEEE spec. > =20 > Most of the researchers using ns2 use a range of 250 > m (which is the default range in ns2), some use 200m > and some papers use 300m.=20 > =20 > Can any anyone please let me know the ideal antenna > range of 802.11b according to the spec > =20 > Picking a fixed range is a gross simplification. The > range varies tremendously with power, antenna > type/orientation, bit rate, weather, terrain, and > many other factors. In open terrain, we often closed > 1=962 km links using 7 dBi omni vehicle mount antennas > and 20 dBm 802.11b cards running at 1 or 2 Mbps. > =20 > Intersil published a great application note some > time back on calculating link budgets, which is the > way to go for calculating an ideal range: > =20 > http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/an9804.pdf=20 > =20 > Cheers, > =20 > Andreas >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 =09 __________________________________=20 Do you Yahoo!?=20 Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!=20 http://my.yahoo.com=20 =20 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 29 14:20:10 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02993 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:20:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjjXr-0006ar-T2 for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:31:45 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjjIJ-0007XP-Bl; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:15:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjjHJ-0007Kp-Gg for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:14:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02690 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateway.scalable-networks.com ([63.205.33.202] helo=mithrandir.scalable-networks.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjjSU-0006UD-5D for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:26:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 23225 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2004 19:14:39 -0000 Received: from web.lan.scalable-solutions.com (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (sssmail@192.168.0.1) by mithrandir.scalable-networks.com with SMTP; 29 Dec 2004 19:14:39 -0000 Message-ID: <41D30215.2060405@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 11:14:29 -0800 From: Mineo Takai User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev audsin Subject: Re: [manet] 802.11b ideal antenna range according to IEEE spec References: <20041229184352.55869.qmail@web51302.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20041229184352.55869.qmail@web51302.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id OAA02690 Cc: manet@ietf.org, Andreas Yankopolus X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, The IEEE 802.11 standard defines a set of requirements for a card to=20 interoperate with other 802.11 cards, so it does not specify an "ideal"=20 range. (The ideal range should be equal to the distance to an intended=20 receiver, which can be short or long.) However, it accounts for 1 us of=20 propagation delay in its timing, which is 300m at the speed of light.=20 That is the only range related parameter I know of if you do not want to=20 touch any PHY layer and wireless propagation issues. Note that actual 802.11 cards can accommodate a longer propagation delay=20 as witnessed by many people. Mineo dev audsin wrote: > Hi Andreas >=20 > Thanks for the reply. I understand that the antenna > range depends tremendously on factors like power, > antenna type/orientation, bit rate, weather, terrain > etc.=20 >=20 > But my question is there any specific ideal range > specified in the IEEE 802.11b spec under ideal > conditions >=20 > I am not very familiar with the PHY and sorry for > asking very naive ques like this. I searched for the > IEEE spec on 802.11b but couldnt find it. Any idea > where i can find it. >=20 > Regards >=20 > MU >=20 > --- Andreas Yankopolus wrote: >=20 >=20 >>Can anyone please let me know the antenna range of >>802.11b according to the IEEE spec. >>=20 >>Most of the researchers using ns2 use a range of 250 >>m (which is the default range in ns2), some use 200m >>and some papers use 300m.=20 >>=20 >>Can any anyone please let me know the ideal antenna >>range of 802.11b according to the spec >>=20 >>Picking a fixed range is a gross simplification. The >>range varies tremendously with power, antenna >>type/orientation, bit rate, weather, terrain, and >>many other factors. In open terrain, we often closed >>1=962 km links using 7 dBi omni vehicle mount antennas >>and 20 dBm 802.11b cards running at 1 or 2 Mbps. >>=20 >>Intersil published a great application note some >>time back on calculating link budgets, which is the >>way to go for calculating an ideal range: >>=20 >>http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/an9804.pdf=20 >>=20 >>Cheers, >>=20 >>Andreas >> >> >>>_______________________________________________ >> >>manet mailing list >>manet@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > =09 > __________________________________=20 > Do you Yahoo!?=20 > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!=20 > http://my.yahoo.com=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 30 05:26:53 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA29858 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:26:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjxhU-00045R-5n for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:38:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjxNE-0007Lm-JM; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:17:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CjxDh-00055m-6z for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:07:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28848 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:07:46 -0500 (EST) From: lavecchc@eurecom.fr Received: from smtp.eurecom.fr ([193.55.113.210]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CjxOz-0003fb-LQ for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:19:30 -0500 Received: from thorgal.eurecom.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.eurecom.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iBUA7B6u007485; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:07:12 +0100 (CET) Received: (from noaccess@localhost) by thorgal.eurecom.fr (8.12.1/8.12.1) id iBUA7ASP021641; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:07:10 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: thorgal.eurecom.fr: noaccess set sender to lavecchc@eurecom.fr using -f Received: from d83-176-28-4.cust.tele2.it (d83-176-28-4.cust.tele2.it [83.176.28.4]) by webmail.eurecom.fr (IMP) with HTTP for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:07:10 +0100 Message-ID: <1104401230.41d3d34e4fec3@webmail.eurecom.fr> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:07:10 +0100 To: Giorgio Mulas Subject: RE: [manet] 802.11, MANETs and mesh networks? References: <9F1223587A755D47805AECAB7ECAF5D901C10A6C@swing.cefriel.it> In-Reply-To: <9F1223587A755D47805AECAB7ECAF5D901C10A6C@swing.cefriel.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 83.176.28.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by smtp.eurecom.fr id iBUA7B6u007485 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9af087f15dbdd4c64ae6bbcdbc5b1d44 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: manet@ietf.org, Claudio.Lavecchia@eurecom.fr X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8c5db863102a3ada84e0cd52a81a79e Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ciao Giorgio e Buon anno... OK, of course I agree 100% with you about the fact that the advances that= derive from mesh networking are usable regardless of the wireless technology on = the top of it. And of course I agree on the fact that 802.11 was not born for that purpo= se and that advantages exceed disadvantages at the moment. So more or less I agree on anything and I will read the IEEE papers you s= uggest. My question was a little bit more oriented to today real life. I could re= state it as follows: If today I want to deploy a mesh network topology for veichular applicati= ons using 802.11 as a wireless technology, could I do that in a cost and performances effective way? Is it true that such an architecture would need that all the access point= s have two interfaces, one to be used for connections from mobile nodes and the = second one to route the traffic toward other access points of the mesh? Is there any way, today and with 802.11, to make so that a mobile node ca= nnot connect directly to another mobile node (in ad-hoc mode) or to an access = point without changing any configuration? Ciao Claudio Claudio Quoting Giorgio Mulas : > Hi Claudio, hi all, and happy xmas holidays, >=20 > I agree with you when you depict a meshnetworking/ubiquitous computing > future, but I have some considerations about the second part of your > intervention. >=20 > First of all, I think that ad hoc networking refers mainly to layer 3 (= not > considering cross-layering issues that are layer 1/2 technology specifi= c). > This implies that a MANET could be built for example on Bluetooth or Zi= gbee > technology if you need only some kilo Bytes or on WiMax if you need mor= e > bandwidth, not just on WiFi. In all these cases layer 3 issues remains > *roughly* the same. =20 >=20 > Second, in what I call a Lego-like approach you try to adapt existing m= ature > (except WiMax of course) technologies, that are optimized for a certain= type > of architecture, to the ad hoc, and specifically MANET, architecture. T= he > main advantage of this approach is that products are already available = and > "easy to use", but the disadvantage is that you undergo several trade-o= ffs. > In this sense there is no MANET technology. >=20 > Related to the second consideration, in the short term advantages excee= d > disadvantages and then some task or working groups arise in order to "p= atch" > existing technologies, while R&D centers study on a true MANET technolo= gy. >=20 > About your last consideration about the use of 802.11 as underlying > technology for MANETs, I suggest you to check the following PARs @ > http://www.ieee802.org/11/PARs/ >=20 > - 802.11p TGp - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide Wir= eless > Access for Vehicular Environments =20 > - 802.11r TGr - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide Fas= t BSS > - Transition=20 > - 802.11s TGs - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide Ext= ended > Service Set Mesh Networking =20 > - 802.11u TGu - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide > Interworking with External Networks=20 >=20 > That are related to adding mesh networking capabilities to 802.11. >=20 > Hope this has been useful >=20 > Best regards >=20 > Giorgio >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------ > Giorgio Mulas | Researcher >=20 > CEFRIEL =AD Politecnico di Milano > Via Fucini, 2 =B7 20133 Milano (Italy) >=20 > p. +39 02 23954 265 > f. +39 02 23954 465 > e. giorgio.mulas@cefriel.it >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Hello to the MANET community and merry XMAS to you all.=20 > >=20 > > When the holidays will be over, I would like to open a=20 > > discussion on a subject that is not 100% related to MANETs=20 > > but could still interest some of you.=20 > >=20 > > I assume that 802.11 is the standard that has won the market=20 > > for wireless LAN applications.=20 > > Now, in my vision, one of the future developments of =20 > > wireless networks in the close future is the cooperation of=20 > > MANETs and wireless mesh networks.=20 > > Wireless mesh networks are networks that are essentially=20 > > composed by mobile and fixed wireless nodes: the fixed nodes=20 > > are used to cover a local area. The benefit of mesh=20 > > architecture is that if that we add fault and congestion=20 > > tolerance by using redudancy of nodes. In other words, a=20 > > dense mesh network that runs self-organizing routing=20 > > protocols and self organizing congestion-avoidance=20 > > protocols, will re-route traffic to avoid broken links and=20 > > congested nodes.=20 > > Mesh networks will allow to extend MANETs, because two farway=20 > > mobile nodes will be able to connect to each other by using =20 > > the mesh network nodes. In this scenario, two close mobile=20 > > nodes will connect tdirectly without passing throuhg any mesh=20 > > network node. > >=20 > > Now the question is: is this possible using 802.11 standard?=20 > > In my opinion the answer in NO because in 802.11 a device can=20 > > be EITHER in Ad-hoc OR in infrastructure mode. To my=20 > > knowledge, in 802.11 two access points cannot connect to each=20 > > other using wireless connection or at least this is not=20 > > possible in a standard configuration.=20 > >=20 > > Am I right? Am I missing something? for comparison, you could=20 > > check the MEA technology by a company named MeshNetworks,=20 > > recently bought by Motorola (www.meshnetworks.com). > >=20 > > Thanks for your answers and merry XMAS again=A7 > >=20 > > Claudio=20 > >=20 > > ------------------------------------------------- > > This mail sent through Institut Eurecom Webmail:=20 > > http://webmail.eurecom.fr > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > >=20 >=20 ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through Institut Eurecom Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.f= r _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From manet-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 30 11:34:44 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25649 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ck3RX-0004SK-1D for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:46:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ck39g-0003gP-NX; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:28:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ck37a-00034Y-7X for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:25:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25033 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-red.research.att.com ([192.20.225.110] helo=mail-white.research.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ck3Iw-0004FO-Eo for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:37:38 -0500 Received: from ha149 (dhcp2-new111.research.att.com [135.207.29.111]) by bigmail.research.att.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iBUGPLN00656; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:25:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200412301625.iBUGPLN00656@bigmail.research.att.com> From: "Lusheng Ji" To: , "'Giorgio Mulas'" Subject: RE: [manet] 802.11, MANETs and mesh networks? Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:25:22 -0500 Organization: AT&T Labs Research MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <1104401230.41d3d34e4fec3@webmail.eurecom.fr> Thread-Index: AcTuWhpdqjxM2FN0QJKM7TXf1chCGQAKSjRQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7c1a129dc3801d79d40c5ca8dee767eb Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cbb41f2dbf0f142369614756642005e3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings! Sorry for jumping in. On this day before the New Year holiday, sitting = in an empty office, I find your topic quite interesting ;) So here is my 2 cents to stir up the discussion a little more. A point of access does not have to be an "AP". Set up a node bridging between an Ethernet interface and an ad hoc mode 802.11 interface, you = have yourself a point of access (to Ethernet DS) too.=20 In typical MANET/Mesh scenarios, there is really not much incentive of = using the additional functions of 802.11 AP. The whole network has to be on = the same channel and using the same basic transmission rates anyway. = Regarding functions such as authentication and security, well, my impression is = that MANET/Mesh is not there yet to talk about these, especially if you are thinking about 11i. Association is a double edged sword, which we may = not want in MANET/Mesh either. Beacons? Well they are good but MANET nodes typically do their own hellos and gateway advertisements anyway. After stripping off these extraneous functions, what is left in an AP that we really need for typical MANET/Mesh scenarios? Actually not much = different from what any other ad hoc mode nodes have. Then why not just putting = up another ad hoc node and stabbing a RJ45 plug into its back and using it = as the point of access? Okay what if you want real APs, not faked ones? There are a couple of options too.=20 Among the more recent AP products, many of them support something called = the "wireless distribution system", or WDS. WDS enables APs to talk to each other over wireless directly. It also enables layer 2 forwarding in an 802.11 mesh because WDS frames use 4 MAC addresses not 3. The = additional MAC address could be used to preserve the original source identity. You might want to look into that. It's been in the standard but had not = been implemented until recently. An AP can use the same physical interface = to do its AP things and WDS things. The catch is: while this solves some problems, it may open another can of worms. In this type of = deployments, the APs need to be deployed very densely since they need to be in range = with each other. Assuming they do not do super communication among = themselves, the AP density needs to be roughly 4 times (if you use square to model = the shape of each cell) of a WLAN type of deployment (without inter-AP = wireless communication) covering the same area. The added costs, more frequent mobile client handoffs.... Well, at last, if you really really want an all around all time "WDS+adhoc+DCF/PCF" super power AP, seems that you would have to make = you own. Fortunately as far as I can see, the differences between what you = need and what current APs offer pretty much are all above firmware level. So = you could play with an open source kernel/user space AP implementation such = as the hostapd to tailor it towards your purpose. Efficient or not is = another issue, but it is def. out of scope for this thread :) Hope the above helps a little. =20 Oh and, happy New Year! Regards, Lusheng Ji, Ph.D. Senior Technical Specialist AT&T Labs Research 180 Park Ave., Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA -----Original Message----- From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of lavecchc@eurecom.fr Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 5:07 AM To: Giorgio Mulas Cc: manet@ietf.org; Claudio.Lavecchia@eurecom.fr Subject: RE: [manet] 802.11, MANETs and mesh networks? Ciao Giorgio e Buon anno... OK, of course I agree 100% with you about the fact that the advances = that derive from mesh networking are usable regardless of the wireless technology on = the top of it. And of course I agree on the fact that 802.11 was not born for that = purpose and that advantages exceed disadvantages at the moment. So more or less I agree on anything and I will read the IEEE papers you suggest. My question was a little bit more oriented to today real life. I could restate it as follows: If today I want to deploy a mesh network topology for veichular = applications using 802.11 as a wireless technology, could I do that in a cost and performances effective way? Is it true that such an architecture would need that all the access = points have two interfaces, one to be used for connections from mobile nodes and the second one to route the traffic toward other access points of the mesh? Is there any way, today and with 802.11, to make so that a mobile node cannot connect directly to another mobile node (in ad-hoc mode) or to an access point without changing any configuration? Ciao Claudio Claudio Quoting Giorgio Mulas : > Hi Claudio, hi all, and happy xmas holidays, >=20 > I agree with you when you depict a meshnetworking/ubiquitous computing > future, but I have some considerations about the second part of your > intervention. >=20 > First of all, I think that ad hoc networking refers mainly to layer 3 = (not > considering cross-layering issues that are layer 1/2 technology = specific). > This implies that a MANET could be built for example on Bluetooth or Zigbee > technology if you need only some kilo Bytes or on WiMax if you need = more > bandwidth, not just on WiFi. In all these cases layer 3 issues remains > *roughly* the same. =20 >=20 > Second, in what I call a Lego-like approach you try to adapt existing mature > (except WiMax of course) technologies, that are optimized for a = certain type > of architecture, to the ad hoc, and specifically MANET, architecture. = The > main advantage of this approach is that products are already available = and > "easy to use", but the disadvantage is that you undergo several trade-offs. > In this sense there is no MANET technology. >=20 > Related to the second consideration, in the short term advantages = exceed > disadvantages and then some task or working groups arise in order to "patch" > existing technologies, while R&D centers study on a true MANET = technology. >=20 > About your last consideration about the use of 802.11 as underlying > technology for MANETs, I suggest you to check the following PARs @ > http://www.ieee802.org/11/PARs/ >=20 > - 802.11p TGp - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide Wireless > Access for Vehicular Environments =20 > - 802.11r TGr - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide = Fast BSS > - Transition=20 > - 802.11s TGs - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide Extended > Service Set Mesh Networking =20 > - 802.11u TGu - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide > Interworking with External Networks=20 >=20 > That are related to adding mesh networking capabilities to 802.11. >=20 > Hope this has been useful >=20 > Best regards >=20 > Giorgio >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------ > Giorgio Mulas | Researcher >=20 > CEFRIEL =AD Politecnico di Milano > Via Fucini, 2 =B7 20133 Milano (Italy) >=20 > p. +39 02 23954 265 > f. +39 02 23954 465 > e. giorgio.mulas@cefriel.it >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Hello to the MANET community and merry XMAS to you all.=20 > >=20 > > When the holidays will be over, I would like to open a=20 > > discussion on a subject that is not 100% related to MANETs=20 > > but could still interest some of you.=20 > >=20 > > I assume that 802.11 is the standard that has won the market=20 > > for wireless LAN applications.=20 > > Now, in my vision, one of the future developments of =20 > > wireless networks in the close future is the cooperation of=20 > > MANETs and wireless mesh networks.=20 > > Wireless mesh networks are networks that are essentially=20 > > composed by mobile and fixed wireless nodes: the fixed nodes=20 > > are used to cover a local area. The benefit of mesh=20 > > architecture is that if that we add fault and congestion=20 > > tolerance by using redudancy of nodes. In other words, a=20 > > dense mesh network that runs self-organizing routing=20 > > protocols and self organizing congestion-avoidance=20 > > protocols, will re-route traffic to avoid broken links and=20 > > congested nodes.=20 > > Mesh networks will allow to extend MANETs, because two farway=20 > > mobile nodes will be able to connect to each other by using =20 > > the mesh network nodes. In this scenario, two close mobile=20 > > nodes will connect tdirectly without passing throuhg any mesh=20 > > network node. > >=20 > > Now the question is: is this possible using 802.11 standard?=20 > > In my opinion the answer in NO because in 802.11 a device can=20 > > be EITHER in Ad-hoc OR in infrastructure mode. To my=20 > > knowledge, in 802.11 two access points cannot connect to each=20 > > other using wireless connection or at least this is not=20 > > possible in a standard configuration.=20 > >=20 > > Am I right? Am I missing something? for comparison, you could=20 > > check the MEA technology by a company named MeshNetworks,=20 > > recently bought by Motorola (www.meshnetworks.com). > >=20 > > Thanks for your answers and merry XMAS again=A7 > >=20 > > Claudio=20 > >=20 > > ------------------------------------------------- > > This mail sent through Institut Eurecom Webmail:=20 > > http://webmail.eurecom.fr > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > >=20 >=20 ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through Institut Eurecom Webmail: = http://webmail.eurecom.fr _______________________________________________ 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 TMXJYYIRQY@taverna.ru Fri Dec 31 00:08:09 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA16304; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:08:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CkFCa-0006Og-CY; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:20:03 -0500 Received: from [200.75.202.103] (helo=65.246.255.50) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1CkF15-00079e-UV; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:08:00 -0500 Received: from spring.anu.decennial.au ([154.128.18.35] helo=anu.deafen.au) by smtp1.bondholder.co with esmtp id 1A5Ys6-646120-50 Message-ID: Sender: freeradius-devel-TMXJYYIRQY@taverna.ru X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:56:35 -0300 From: "Wm Hardy" To: manet-web-archive@ietf.org Subject: meds at damn cheap prices Derek X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Offshore pharm wish you all best in New Year! We will offer you best prices on any meds you need Via gra Cia 1is Va1 ium Xan ax and much more.. Please click below and check out our offer. http://navajo.hereitgoesoncemore.com/?wid=100069 shish dig cody aid substantiate ski checkout dilate multiplicity dispel absorb scroll parsonage remiss surpass derbyshire aloud rumford lippincott blomberg tissue cowlick contagion until assault loot algonquin shelton morgen delft aileron internal vineyard courteous cyanamid wily sound whereon cliche benedikt lieutenant beatnik actor cousin afford phi hillmen orange divergent expel pyrophosphate buses coroutine airmen http://calendar.hereitgoesoncemore.com/nomore.html From manet-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 31 03:26:57 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11911 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:26:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CkIJ9-0002ET-FT for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:38:51 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CkI4G-0005Yr-7I; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:23:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CkI1e-0004Tg-JX for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:20:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11646 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:20:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from swing.cefriel.it ([131.175.53.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CkID8-00025M-Ju for manet@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:32:39 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [manet] 802.11, MANETs and mesh networks? Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:20:44 +0100 Message-ID: <9F1223587A755D47805AECAB7ECAF5D901C10ABC@swing.cefriel.it> Thread-Topic: [manet] 802.11, MANETs and mesh networks? Thread-Index: AcTuWhpdqjxM2FN0QJKM7TXf1chCGQAKSjRQACNI5hA= From: "Giorgio Mulas" To: "Lusheng Ji" , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f6ef73100908d67495ce675c3fe8f472 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: manet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a0ecb232550b38fd41a3cf6a312fbabc Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Empty office here too ;-) Thank you for your contribution. I completely agree to your = considerations. Happy new year! ------------------------------------------ Giorgio Mulas | Researcher CEFRIEL =AD Politecnico di Milano Via Fucini, 2 =B7 20133 Milano (Italy) p. +39 02 23954 265 f. +39 02 23954 465 e. giorgio.mulas@cefriel.it > -----Original Message----- > From: Lusheng Ji [mailto:lji@research.att.com]=20 > Sent: gioved=EC 30 dicembre 2004 17.25 > To: lavecchc@eurecom.fr; Giorgio Mulas > Cc: manet@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [manet] 802.11, MANETs and mesh networks? >=20 >=20 > Greetings! >=20 > Sorry for jumping in. On this day before the New Year=20 > holiday, sitting in an empty office, I find your topic quite=20 > interesting ;) So here is my 2 cents to stir up the=20 > discussion a little more. >=20 > A point of access does not have to be an "AP". Set up a node=20 > bridging between an Ethernet interface and an ad hoc mode=20 > 802.11 interface, you have yourself a point of access (to=20 > Ethernet DS) too.=20 >=20 > In typical MANET/Mesh scenarios, there is really not much=20 > incentive of using the additional functions of 802.11 AP. =20 > The whole network has to be on the same channel and using the=20 > same basic transmission rates anyway. Regarding functions=20 > such as authentication and security, well, my impression is=20 > that MANET/Mesh is not there yet to talk about these,=20 > especially if you are thinking about 11i. Association is a=20 > double edged sword, which we may not want in MANET/Mesh=20 > either. Beacons? Well they are good but MANET nodes=20 > typically do their own hellos and gateway advertisements=20 > anyway. After stripping off these extraneous functions, what=20 > is left in an AP that we really need for typical MANET/Mesh=20 > scenarios? Actually not much different from what any other=20 > ad hoc mode nodes have. Then why not just putting up another=20 > ad hoc node and stabbing a RJ45 plug into its back and using=20 > it as the point of access? >=20 > Okay what if you want real APs, not faked ones? There are a=20 > couple of options too.=20 >=20 > Among the more recent AP products, many of them support=20 > something called the "wireless distribution system", or WDS. =20 > WDS enables APs to talk to each other over wireless directly.=20 > It also enables layer 2 forwarding in an 802.11 mesh because=20 > WDS frames use 4 MAC addresses not 3. The additional MAC=20 > address could be used to preserve the original source=20 > identity. You might want to look into that. It's been in=20 > the standard but had not been implemented until recently. An=20 > AP can use the same physical interface to do its AP things=20 > and WDS things. The catch is: while this solves some=20 > problems, it may open another can of worms. In this type of=20 > deployments, the APs need to be deployed very densely since=20 > they need to be in range with each other. Assuming they do=20 > not do super communication among themselves, the AP density=20 > needs to be roughly 4 times (if you use square to model the=20 > shape of each cell) of a WLAN type of deployment (without=20 > inter-AP wireless > communication) covering the same area. The added costs, more=20 > frequent mobile client handoffs.... >=20 > Well, at last, if you really really want an all around all=20 > time "WDS+adhoc+DCF/PCF" super power AP, seems that you would=20 > have to make you own. Fortunately as far as I can see, the=20 > differences between what you need and what current APs offer=20 > pretty much are all above firmware level. So you could play=20 > with an open source kernel/user space AP implementation such=20 > as the hostapd to tailor it towards your purpose. Efficient=20 > or not is another issue, but it is def. out of scope for this=20 > thread :) >=20 > Hope the above helps a little. =20 > Oh and, happy New Year! >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Lusheng Ji, Ph.D. > Senior Technical Specialist > AT&T Labs Research > 180 Park Ave., > Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf Of lavecchc@eurecom.fr > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 5:07 AM > To: Giorgio Mulas > Cc: manet@ietf.org; Claudio.Lavecchia@eurecom.fr > Subject: RE: [manet] 802.11, MANETs and mesh networks? >=20 > Ciao Giorgio e Buon anno... >=20 > OK, of course I agree 100% with you about the fact that the=20 > advances that derive from mesh networking are usable=20 > regardless of the wireless technology on the top of it. >=20 > And of course I agree on the fact that 802.11 was not born=20 > for that purpose and that advantages exceed disadvantages at=20 > the moment. >=20 > So more or less I agree on anything and I will read the IEEE=20 > papers you suggest. >=20 > My question was a little bit more oriented to today real=20 > life. I could restate it as follows: >=20 > If today I want to deploy a mesh network topology for=20 > veichular applications using 802.11 as a wireless technology,=20 > could I do that in a cost and performances effective way?=20 > Is it true that such an architecture would need that all the=20 > access points have two interfaces, one to be used for=20 > connections from mobile nodes and the second one to route the=20 > traffic toward other access points of the mesh? Is there any=20 > way, today and with 802.11, to make so that a mobile node=20 > cannot connect directly to another mobile node (in ad-hoc=20 > mode) or to an access point without changing any configuration? >=20 > Ciao >=20 > Claudio >=20 > Claudio >=20 >=20 >=20 > Quoting Giorgio Mulas : >=20 > > Hi Claudio, hi all, and happy xmas holidays, > >=20 > > I agree with you when you depict a=20 > meshnetworking/ubiquitous computing=20 > > future, but I have some considerations about the second=20 > part of your=20 > > intervention. > >=20 > > First of all, I think that ad hoc networking refers mainly=20 > to layer 3=20 > > (not considering cross-layering issues that are layer 1/2=20 > technology=20 > > specific). This implies that a MANET could be built for example on=20 > > Bluetooth or > Zigbee > > technology if you need only some kilo Bytes or on WiMax if you need=20 > > more bandwidth, not just on WiFi. In all these cases layer 3 issues=20 > > remains > > *roughly* the same. =20 > >=20 > > Second, in what I call a Lego-like approach you try to=20 > adapt existing > mature > > (except WiMax of course) technologies, that are optimized for a=20 > > certain > type > > of architecture, to the ad hoc, and specifically MANET,=20 > architecture.=20 > > The main advantage of this approach is that products are already=20 > > available and "easy to use", but the disadvantage is that=20 > you undergo=20 > > several > trade-offs. > > In this sense there is no MANET technology. > >=20 > > Related to the second consideration, in the short term advantages=20 > > exceed disadvantages and then some task or working groups arise in=20 > > order to > "patch" > > existing technologies, while R&D centers study on a true MANET=20 > > technology. > >=20 > > About your last consideration about the use of 802.11 as underlying=20 > > technology for MANETs, I suggest you to check the following PARs @=20 > > http://www.ieee802.org/11/PARs/ > >=20 > > - 802.11p TGp - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide > Wireless > > Access for Vehicular Environments > > - 802.11r TGr - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to=20 > provide Fast > BSS > > - Transition > > - 802.11s TGs - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide > Extended > > Service Set Mesh Networking > > - 802.11u TGu - Amendment to the current 802.11 Standard to provide > > Interworking with External Networks=20 > >=20 > > That are related to adding mesh networking capabilities to 802.11. > >=20 > > Hope this has been useful > >=20 > > Best regards > >=20 > > Giorgio > >=20 > >=20 > > ------------------------------------------ > > Giorgio Mulas | Researcher > >=20 > > CEFRIEL =AD Politecnico di Milano > > Via Fucini, 2 =B7 20133 Milano (Italy) > >=20 > > p. +39 02 23954 265 > > f. +39 02 23954 465 > > e. giorgio.mulas@cefriel.it > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Hello to the MANET community and merry XMAS to you all. > > >=20 > > > When the holidays will be over, I would like to open a > > > discussion on a subject that is not 100% related to MANETs=20 > > > but could still interest some of you.=20 > > >=20 > > > I assume that 802.11 is the standard that has won the market > > > for wireless LAN applications.=20 > > > Now, in my vision, one of the future developments of =20 > > > wireless networks in the close future is the cooperation of=20 > > > MANETs and wireless mesh networks.=20 > > > Wireless mesh networks are networks that are essentially=20 > > > composed by mobile and fixed wireless nodes: the fixed nodes=20 > > > are used to cover a local area. The benefit of mesh=20 > > > architecture is that if that we add fault and congestion=20 > > > tolerance by using redudancy of nodes. In other words, a=20 > > > dense mesh network that runs self-organizing routing=20 > > > protocols and self organizing congestion-avoidance=20 > > > protocols, will re-route traffic to avoid broken links and=20 > > > congested nodes.=20 > > > Mesh networks will allow to extend MANETs, because two farway=20 > > > mobile nodes will be able to connect to each other by using =20 > > > the mesh network nodes. In this scenario, two close mobile=20 > > > nodes will connect tdirectly without passing throuhg any mesh=20 > > > network node. > > >=20 > > > Now the question is: is this possible using 802.11 standard? > > > In my opinion the answer in NO because in 802.11 a device can=20 > > > be EITHER in Ad-hoc OR in infrastructure mode. To my=20 > > > knowledge, in 802.11 two access points cannot connect to each=20 > > > other using wireless connection or at least this is not=20 > > > possible in a standard configuration.=20 > > >=20 > > > Am I right? Am I missing something? for comparison, you could > > > check the MEA technology by a company named MeshNetworks,=20 > > > recently bought by Motorola (www.meshnetworks.com). > > >=20 > > > Thanks for your answers and merry XMAS again=A7 > > >=20 > > > Claudio > > >=20 > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > This mail sent through Institut Eurecom Webmail: > > > http://webmail.eurecom.fr > > >=20 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > manet mailing list > > > manet@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through Institut Eurecom Webmail:=20 > http://webmail.eurecom.fr >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From PNUGJ@technistone.com Fri Dec 31 12:56:12 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13997; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:56:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CkRBy-0005za-NS; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:08:13 -0500 Received: from adsl-69-208-163-112.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net ([69.208.163.112]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1CkR0E-0008Hh-Cu; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:55:54 -0500 Received: from starfish [112.118.64.254] (helo=diehard.contravariant.dearriba.com) by smtp2.cistron.nl with esmtp (shout 3.35 #1 (autumnal)) id 633LFL-0028PT-92 Message-ID: <02672283144732.R37458@gilt.noc.melodic.gr> Sender: freeradius-devel-PNUGJ@technistone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:55:46 +0600 From: "Inez Conway" To: manet-web-archive@ietf.org Subject: Vicodin - only now Vicki X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Christmas sale on Vicodin and other drugs. You won`t find better prices anywhere! V icodin - 90 PiIls - 178$ V iagra - 100 PilIs - 209.99$ C ialis - 90 PiIls - 324$ A mbien - 120 PilIs - 249$ X anax - 90 PiIls - 299$ and many more... Please click below and check out our offer. http://zambia.nicepills.info/in.php?aid=44 freakish englander wind rightful constituent dud blackbody demand dominique amethystine vellum contravention ablate compendia ozark crawlspace octahedra atrocity danish nyu carefree citrate discussion copywriter accolade via walpole horseman attica demented tweeze condition constant choctaw edt ashman tangy vanderpoel addenda acme derive antenna stimulant relinquish polaron dibble add wheresoever glob agamemnon insult hen decline durkin From manet-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 31 13:22:37 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15578 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:22:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CkRbi-0006aE-Jf for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:34:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CkRO4-0003EZ-Ek; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:20:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CkRHo-0001pE-Bd for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:14:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15062 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:14:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from pophost.cs.tamu.edu ([128.194.138.12] helo=pine.cs.tamu.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CkRTN-0006P2-CC for manet@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:26:02 -0500 Received: from unix.cs.tamu.edu (unix.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.138.13]) by pine.cs.tamu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBVIE0aH006550 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:14:00 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (b0l4549@localhost) by unix.cs.tamu.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id iBVIE0h21122 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:14:00 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: unix.cs.tamu.edu: b0l4549 owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:14:00 -0600 (CST) From: Bin Lu To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Subject: [manet] watchdog simulation code X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Hi, Is there anyone who has simulated "watchdog" and would be nice to let me use the code? Or does anybody know where I can find and download such code? I'm doing some simulation on my intrusion detection which uses the idea of "watchdog". I'd appreciate your help very much. Bin Lu _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet