One document matched: draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-06.xml
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc ipr="trust200811" category="info" docName="draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-06">
<front>
<title abbrev="Multi-hop Ad Hoc Wireless Communication">
Multi-hop Ad Hoc Wireless Communication</title>
<author initials="E.B." surname="Baccelli" fullname="Emmanuel Baccelli">
<organization>INRIA</organization>
<address>
<phone>+33-169-335-511</phone>
<email>Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr</email>
<uri>http://www.emmanuelbaccelli.org/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="C.P." surname="Perkins" fullname="Charles E. Perkins">
<organization>Tellabs</organization>
<address>
<phone>+1-408-970-6560</phone>
<email>charliep@tellabs.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day='29' month='Jul' year='2011'/>
<area>Internet</area>
<workgroup>MANET Autoconfiguration (Autoconf)</workgroup>
<keyword>I-D</keyword>
<keyword>Internet Draft</keyword>
<abstract>
<t><vspace blankLines="6" /></t>
<t>
This document describes some characteristics
of communication between nodes in a multi-hop ad hoc
wireless network. These are not requirements in the
sense usually understood as applying to formulation of
a requirements document.
Nevertheless, protocol engineers and system analysts
involved with designing solutions for ad hoc networks
must maintain awareness of these characteristics.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor='introduction' title='Introduction'>
<t>
The goal of this document is to
describe some aspects of multi-hop ad hoc wireless
communication. Experience gathered with
<xref target="RFC3626"/> <xref target="RFC3561"/>
<xref target="RFC3684"/> <xref target="RFC4728"/>
<xref target="RFC5449"/> <xref target="RFC2501"/>
<xref target="DoD01"/> shows that this type of
communication presents specific challenges. This
document briefly describes these challenges, which one
should maintain awareness of, when designing Internet
protocols for ad hoc networks.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='manets' title='Multi-hop Ad Hoc Wireless Networks'>
<t>
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, that are using the same
physical and medium access protocols, that are moreover configured
to self-organize and provide store-and-forward functionality
on top of these protocols as needed to enable communications.
The devices providing network connectivity are considered to
be routers. Other non-routing wireless devices, if present
in the ad hoc network, are considered to be "end-hosts".
The considerations in this document apply equally to routers
or end-hosts; we use the term "node" to refer to any such
network device in the ad hoc network.
</t>
<t>
An example of multi-hop ad hoc wireless network is a wireless
community network such as Funkfeuer <xref target="FUNKFEUER"/>
or Freifunk <xref target="FREIFUNK"/>, that consists in routers
running OLSR <xref target="RFC3626"/> on 802.11 in ad hoc mode
with the same ESSID at link layer. Multi-hop ad hoc wireless
networks may also run on link layers other than 802.11.
</t>
<t>
Note however that simple hosts communicating through an access
point with 802.11 in infrastructure mode do not form a multi-hop
ad hoc wireless network, since the central role of the access point
is determined a priori, and since nodes other than the access point
do not generally provide store-and-forward functionality.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="links"
title="Common Packet Transmission Characteristics in
Multi-hop Ad Hoc Wireless Networks">
<t>
Let A and B be two nodes in a multi-hop ad hoc wireless network N.
Suppose that, when node A transmits a packet through its
interface on network N, that packet is correctly received
by node B without requiring storage and/or forwarding by
any other device. We will then say that B "hears" packets from A.
Note that therefore, when B can hear IP packets from A, the TTL of
the IP packet heard by B will be precisely the same as it
was when A transmitted that packet.
</t>
<t>
Let S be the set of nodes that can hear packets transmitted
by node A through its interface on network N. The following
section gathers common characteristics concerning packet
transmission over such networks, which were observed through
experience with
<xref target="RFC3626"/> <xref target="RFC3561"/>
<xref target="RFC3684"/> <xref target="RFC4728"/>
<xref target="RFC5449"/>.
</t>
<section anchor="graphs"
title="Asymmetry, Time-Variation, and Non-Transitivity">
<t>
First, there is no guarantee that a node C within S can,
symmetrically, send IP packets directly to node A. In other
words, even though C can "hear" packets from A (since it is
a member of set S), there is no guarantee that A can "hear"
packets from C. Thus, multi-hop ad hoc wireless communications
may be "asymmetric". Such cases are not uncommon.
</t>
<t>
Second, there is no guarantee that, as a set, S is at all stable, i.e.
the membership of set S may in fact change at any rate, at any time.
Thus, multi-hop ad hoc wireless communications may be "time-variant".
Such variations are not unusual in multi-hop ad hoc wireless networks
due to variability of the wireless medium, and to node mobility.
</t>
<t>
Now, conversely, let V be the set of nodes from which A can
directly receive packets -- in other words, A can "hear" packets
from any node in set V. Suppose that node A is
communicating at time t0 through its interface on network N.
As a consequence of time variation and asymmetry,
we observe that A:
</t>
<t>
<list style="numbers">
<t>
cannot assume that S = V,
</t>
<t>
cannot assume that S and/or V are unchanged at time t1 later than t0.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
Furthermore, transitivity is not guaranteed over multi-hop ad hoc
wireless networks. Indeed, let's assume that, through their
respective interfaces within network N:
</t>
<t>
<list style="numbers">
<t>
node B and node A can hear each other (i.e. node B is a member of
sets S and V), and,
</t>
<t>
node A and node C can also hear each other (i.e. node C is a
also a member of sets S and V).
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
These assumptions do not imply that node B can hear node C, nor that
node C can hear node B (through their interface on network N).
Such "non-transitivity" is not uncommon on multi-hop ad hoc
wireless networks.
</t>
<t>
In a nutshell: multi-hop ad hoc wireless communications can be
asymmetric, non-transitive, and time-varying.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="reality"
title="Radio Range and Wireless Irregularities">
<t>
<xref target="graphs"/> presents an abstract description of some
common characteristics concerning packet transmission over multi-hop
ad hoc wireless networks. This section describes practical examples,
which illustrate the characteristics listed in <xref target="graphs"/>
as well as other common effects.
</t>
<t>
Wireless communication links are subject to limitations to the
distance across which they may be established. The range-limitation
factor creates specific problems on multi-hop ad hoc wireless
networks. In this context, it is not uncommon that the radio ranges
of several nodes partially overlap. Such partial overlap causes
communication to be non-transitive and/or asymmetric, as described
in <xref target="graphs"/>.
</t>
<t>
For example, as depicted in Figure 1, it may happen that a node
B hears a node A which transmits at high power, whereas B transmits
at lower power. In such cases, B can hear A, but A cannot hear B.
This examplifies the asymmetry in multi-hop ad hoc wireless
communications as defined in <xref target="graphs"/>.
</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork>
Radio Ranges for Nodes A and B
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
| <~~~~~~+~~~~~~>
+--|--+ +--|--+
| A |======>| B |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 1: Asymmetric Link example. Node A can communicate with
node B, but B cannot communicate with A.
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>
Another example, depicted in Figure 2, is known as the "hidden node"
problem. Even though the nodes all have equal power for their radio
transmissions, they cannot all reach one another. In the figure,
nodes A and B can hear each other, and A and C can also hear each
other. On the other hand, nodes B and C cannot hear each other. When
nodes B and C try to communicate with node A at the same time, their
radio signals collide. Node A will only be able to detect noise, and
may even be unable to determine the source of the noise. The hidden
terminal problem illustrates the property of non-transitivity in
multi-hop ad hoc wireless communications as described
in <xref target="graphs"/>.
</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork>
Radio Ranges for Nodes A, B, C
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~> <~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
|<~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|
+--|--+ +--|--+ +--|--+
| B |=======>| A |<=======| C |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Figure 2: The hidden node problem. Nodes C and B
try to communicate with node A at the same time,
and their radio signals collide.
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t><vspace blankLines="6"/></t>
<t>
Another situation, shown in Figure 3, is known as the
"exposed node" problem. In the figure, node A is transmitting
(to node B). As shown, node C cannot communicate properly with
node D, because of the on-going transmission of node A, polluting
C's radio-range. Node C cannot hear D, but node D can
hear C because D is outside A's radio range.
Node C is then called an "exposed node", because it is exposed to
co-channel interference from node A and thereby prevented from
exchanging protocol messages to enable transmitting data to node D
-- even though the transmission would be successful and would not
interfere with the reception of data sent from node A to node B.
</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork>
Radio Ranges for Nodes A, B, C, D
<~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~> <~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~>
|<~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~>|<~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~>
+--|--+ +--|--+ +--|--+ +--|--+
| B |<======| A | | C |======>| D |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Figure 3: The exposed node problem. When node A is communicating
with node B, node C is an "exposed node".
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>
Hidden and exposed node situations are not uncommon
in multi-hop ad hoc wireless networks. Problems with asymmetric
links may also arise for reasons other than power inequality
(e.g., multipath interference).
Such problems are often resolved by specific mechanisms below the
IP layer.
However, depending the link layer technology in use and the
position of the nodes, such problems due to
range-limitation and partial overlap may affect the IP layer.
</t>
<t>
Besides radio range limitations, wireless communications are
affected by irregularities in the shape of the geographical area
over which nodes may effectively communicate (see for instance
<xref target="MC03"/>, <xref target="MI03"/>).
For example, even omnidirectional wireless transmission is
typically non-isotropic (i.e. non-circular).
Signal strength often suffers frequent and significant variations,
which are not a simple function of distance. Instead, it is a
complex function of the environment
including obstacles, weather conditions, interference, and
other factors that change over time. The analytical
formulation of such variation is often considered intractable.
</t>
<t>
These irregularities also cause communications on multi-hop ad hoc
wireless networks to be non-transitive, asymmetric, or time-varying,
as described in <xref target="graphs"/>, and may impact the IP layer.
There may be no indication to IP when a previously established
communication channel becomes unusable; "link down" triggers
are generally absent in multi-hop ad hoc wireless networks.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="moreterms" title="Alternative Terminology">
<t>
Many terms have been used in the past to describe the relationship of
nodes in a multi-hop ad hoc wireless network based on their ability
to send or receive packets to/from each other. The terms used in
this document have been selected because the authors believe (or at
least hope) they are unambiguous, with respect to the
goal of this document (see <xref target="introduction"/>).
</t>
<t>
Nevertheless, here are a few other terms that describe the same
relationship between nodes in multi-hop ad hoc wireless networks.
In the following, let network N be, again, a multi-hop ad hoc
wireless network. Let the set S be, as before, the set of
nodes that can directly receive packets transmitted by node A
through its interface on network N. In other words, any node B
belonging to S can "hear" packets transmitted by A. Then,
due to the asymmetry characteristic of wireless links:
</t>
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t>
- We may say that node B is reachable from node A. In this
terminology, there is no guarantee that node A is reachable from
node B, even if node B is reachable from node A.
</t>
<t>
- We may say that node A has a link to node B. In this terminology,
there is no guarantee that node B has a link to node A, even if
node A has a link to node B.
</t>
<t>
- We may say that node B is adjacent to node A. In this terminology,
there is no guarantee that node A is adjacent to node B, even
if node B is adjacent to node A.
</t>
<t>
- We may say that node B is downstream from node A. In this
terminology, there is no guarantee that node A is downstream from
node B, even if node B is downstream from node A.
</t>
<t>
- We may say that node B is a neighbor of node A. In this
terminology, there is no guarantee that node A is a neighbor
of node B, even if node B a neighbor of node A. As it happens,
the terminology for "neighborhood" is quite confusing for
asymmetric links. When B can hear signals from A, but A
cannot hear B, it is not clear whether B should be considered
a neighbor of A at all, since A would not necessarily be
aware that B was a neighbor. Perhaps it is best to avoid
the "neighbor" terminology except for symmetric links.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
This list of alternative terminologies is given here for illustrative
purposes only, and is not suggested to be complete or even
representative of the breadth of terminologies that have been
used in various ways to explain the properties mentioned in
<xref target="links"/>.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>
This document does not have any security considerations.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>
This document does not have any IANA actions.
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2501.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3561.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3626.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3684.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4728.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4903.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5449.xml'?>
<reference anchor="DoD01">
<front>
<title>A DoD perspective on mobile ad hoc networks</title>
<author initials="J." surname="Freebersyser"
fullname="J. Freebersyser">
<address>
<uri>http://www.funkfeuer.at</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Leiner" fullname="B. Leiner">
</author>
<date year="2001" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Addison Wesley "
value="C. E. Perkins, Ed., 2001, pp. 29--51" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="FUNKFEUER">
<front>
<title>Austria Wireless Community Network,
http://www.funkfeuer.at</title>
<author>
<address>
<uri>https://map.funkfeuer.at/wien/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2009" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IPev">
<front>
<title>Evolution of the IP Model</title>
<author initials="D." surname="Thaler" fullname="Dave Thaler">
<organization abbrev="MS">Microsoft</organization>
</author>
<date year="2008" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-thaler-ip-model-evolution-01.txt" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="MC03">
<front>
<title>Mobile Ad hoc Networking: Routing Technology
for Dynamic, Wireless Networks</title>
<author initials="S." surname="Corson" fullname="S. Corson">
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Macker" fullname="J. Macker">
</author>
<date year="2003"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="IEEE Press"
value="Mobile Ad hoc Networking, Chapter 9" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="MI03">
<front>
<title>The Mistaken Axioms of Wireless-Network Research</title>
<author initials="D." surname="Kotz" fullname="D. Kotz">
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Newport" fullname="C. Newport">
</author>
<author initials="C." surname="Elliott" fullname="C. Elliott">
</author>
<date year="2003" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Dartmouth College Computer Science "
value="Technical Report TR2003-467" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="FREIFUNK">
<front>
<title>Freifunk Wireless Community Networks</title>
<author>
<address>
<uri>http://www.freifunk.net</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2009" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<section anchor="acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>
This document stems from discussions with the following people,
in alphabetical order:
Jari Arkko,
Teco Boot,
Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano,
Ian Chakeres,
Thomas Clausen,
Christopher Dearlove,
Ralph Droms,
Ulrich Herberg,
Paul Lambert,
Kenichi Mase,
Thomas Narten,
Erik Nordmark,
Alexandru Petrescu,
Stan Ratliff,
Zach Shelby,
Shubhranshu Singh,
Fred Templin,
Dave Thaler,
Mark Townsley,
Ronald Velt in't,
and
Seung Yi.
</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 22:54:56 |