Hello,
I would like to give a few comments on this draft.
It says:
For the purposes of this document, a multi-hop ad hoc wireless
network will be considered to be a collection of devices that each
have a radio transceiver (i.e., wireless network interface), and that
are moreover configured to self-organize and provide store-and-
forward functionality as needed to enable communications.
1. when it says 'multi-hop', it actually means multiple-layer2-hops,
not multiple-IP-hops in particular, right?
These networks are, for example, using 1 IP hop only but comprising
multiple layer2 hops: that 1-IP-hop is made of n-L2-hops.
The networks are not n-IP-hop each made of m-L2-hops.
The Hop Limit field in the IPv6 header is not decremented.
These networks dont have multiple IP subnets, there is only one.
The link-local scope of these subnets reaches every node in the
network.
2. each node has a wireless network interface: yes, not two.
These deployments use routers running IP protocols e.g., OLSR
(Optimized Link State Routing [RFC3626]) on top of IEEE 802.11 in ad
hoc mode with the same ESSID (Extended Service Set Identification) at
the link layer.
3. Please note there is no RFC that specifies how to run IP on top of
802.11. One can say OLSR runs on top of 802.11, but at the same
time there is no RFC that tells how _IP_ runs on it, as "IPv6 over
foo". I think this is worth mentioning in the draft.
Wireless communications are subject to limitations to the distance
across which they may be established.
4. This distance limitation in itself is not enough to distinguish
wireless communications from wired communications. In
wired communications limits on the distance apply as well. In that
sense, it should say "Wireless communications - like all other
communication media - are subject to limitations [...]"
The range-limitation factor creates specific problems on multi-hop ad
hoc wireless networks. In this context, the radio ranges of several
devices often partially overlap.
5. The overlapping is indeed particular to wireless communications
(not seen in wires). However, overlapping is due to the lack of
isolation between the guides, not because of a distance range: whereas
each wire is always isolated by a plastic shield leaving only two ends
open (two wires wouldn't overlap), in wireless 802.11 the 'channeled'
transmission can have many open ends at different distance from one
another (some would overlap).
Moreover, the range may vary from one device to another, depending
on location and environmental factors.
6. This is true, but 'from one device to another' sounds ambiguous:
distance from A to B? Or 'range of reach by emission from A, is
different than the reach of reach by emission from B, depending on
environmental factors like solid obstacles, rain, and more'.
This is in addition to the time variation of range and signal
strength caused by variability in the local environment.
7. But above you say 'environmental facors' and here 'local
environment', so it's not 'in addition' - it's the same.
I will stop here for now.
Yours,
Alex
Le 16/05/2016 à 18:34, Juan Carlos Zuniga a écrit :
Dear Int-Area WG,
The draft-ietf-intarea-adhoc-wireless-com has been discussed in
several occasions and we believe that the latest version addresses
all the comments that have been made.
This email starts an Int-Area WG Last Call on:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-adhoc-wireless-com-01
Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send
comments by 2016-05-30.
In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 "Promoting Compliance with
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)":
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-intarea-adhoc-wireless-com?
If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR
rules?
(See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.)
Best,
Juan Carlos Zuniga & Wassim Haddad
(Int-Area WG co-chairs)
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list
[email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
