[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [manet] AODV Question
Why would anyone want to flood an ad hoc 255 hops away? Maybe an even
more important question is, would that route be usable? I think not...
Only extremely large ad hoc networks would have a radius of 255 hops
unless they are very stretched out. Besides, as people have already
pointed out, the IP ttl is already an 8-bit field.
cheers,
Erik
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 05:25, Jitesh Shah wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> I completely agree with you when you suggest that one
> must take care of the future needs when we are in the
> development stage.
>
> We might have to face a situation in the real life
> when we might actually need more than a byte. The
> things being in development stage, I believe perhaps
> this is the right time to incorporate the changes
> rather than evolving with AODV 1.1 at a later stage
> :-)
>
> Rgds
> Jitesh
>
>
>
> --- DANIEL BYRNE <daniel.byrne@adtran.com> wrote: >
> Agreed. A branched chain configuration would be
> > difficult to support with only a BYTE. My point is
> > that although most everyone involved in development
> > and testing of this protocol have envisioned a
> > 'cluster of connected nodes' arrangement, the
> > reality is the sum total of all possible topolgies
> > in a wireless network of this type is potentially
> > limitless. Limited in effect by only the range of
> > the radios in the network. How are we to know how
> > some future person or organization will use this
> > protocol? Will they need the extra BYTE? Should we
> > place artificial limits on the protocol by
> > purposefully limiting the hop count, address range,
> > etc.?
> >
> > One solution is the "extensions" field in the latest
> > draft of AODV could potentially provide a means to
> > expand upon the protocol in the future if
> > neccessary.
> >
> http://moment.cs.ucsb.edu/pub/draft-perkins-manet-aodvbis-00.txt
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jitesh Shah [mailto:jiteshshahin@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:36 AM
> > To: manet@ulfius.com; manet@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [manet] AODV Question
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It depends on how you see the network. If you are
> > refering to a network which has a CHAIN topology
> > then
> > the byte used for RREP and RREQ might be way
> > insignificant. But when you refer to a well
> > connected
> > network then the byte seems sufficient.
> >
> > Rgds
> > Jitesh
> >
> > --- Robert Cain <manet@ulfius.com> wrote: >
> > Connectivity is the number of other nodes each node
> > > can reach with 1 hop.
> > > Therefore a connectivity of 10 means there is 10
> > > nodes that a can reach
> > > directly. Obviously in an actual network this
> > would
> > > vary from node to node.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob Cain :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > >What does the connectivity parameter specify? Is
> > > it saying in 100,000
> > > nodes only 10 nodes would be connected?
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Robert Cain [mailto:tgm@ulfius.com]
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:13 AM
> > > >To: DANIEL BYRNE
> > > >Subject: Re: [manet] AODV Question
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >1 byte seems OK to me.
> > > >
> > > >With some simple analysis assuming a circular
> > > homogeneous network of node
> > > >count K and a reasonable connectivity C then the
> > > radius of the network in
> > > >hops can be derived to be the square root of K/C.
> > > Which for a network size
> > > >of 100,000 and a connectivity of 10 gives a hop
> > > count radius of 100.
> > > Seeing
> > > >as a network of size 100,000 will be probably at
> > > practical limits of size
> > > >due to performance degradation then I think 1
> > byte
> > > may well be enough.
> > > >
> > > >hope that helps :-)
> > > >
> > > >Rob Cain
> > > >
> > > >>if the
> > > >>
> > > >>"AODV routing protocol is designed for mobile ad
> > > hoc networks
> > > >> with populations of tens to thousands of
> > mobile
> > > nodes"
> > > >>
> > > >>why is the HopCount limited to only a BYTE?
> > This
> > > effectively limits the
> > > >number of hops to 255. Why not expand the hop
> > > count to two bytes into the
> > > >reseved region of the RREQ packet. Something
> > > similar could be done with
> > > >the RREP packet as well.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > >>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
> >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! India Mobile: Download the latest polyphonic
> > ringtones.
> > Go to http://in.mobile.yahoo.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > manet mailing list
> > manet@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! India Mobile: Download the latest polyphonic ringtones.
> Go to http://in.mobile.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet