Subject: RE: [manet] Wi Max?

From: "Giorgio Mulas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:36:43 +0200

Dear Parag,
WiFi is a Layer 1 and 2 technology and it is not related with routing issues.
Ad hoc networking is a research topic considering routing issues (and, of course, other important things)
 
The main relation between WiFi and Ad hoc networks is that cheap WiFi-enabled devices are usually used to build up testbeds for MANETs...
 
BR.
 
Giorgio

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Parag Goswami
Sent: mercoledì 27 ottobre 2004 10.45
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] Wi Max?

Dear All,
If anybody tells me the major differences between Ad hoc networking and WiFi.
As we know both are used for the communication between mobile nodes.Or is it the case that WiFi is also a part of Ad Hoc networking ?
 
Best Regards,
Parag Goswami
http://www.geocities.com/paragboom2k

  _____  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/aac/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/ease.html> Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:49:12 -0700

Parag,

Giorgio is right.  MANET is a layer 3 issue and both WiFi and WiMax are
layer 1-2 technologies.

That said ...  Most experimental MANET stuff needs some kind of plumbing
underneath and WiFi (IEEE 802.11) has been popular for that.  And a lot
of the experimentation has been done in 'ad hoc' or 'infrastructureless'
mode where two subscriber nodes can connect with each other.  In short,
WiFi can be pretty promiscuous which happens to fit the MANET
intentions.  And it's d.c. -- dirt cheap.

Wi-MAX (IEEE 802.16) changes the MAC algorithm from a carrier sense one
used in WiFi (and it's antecedent, wired ethernet) to a scheduling
algorithm.  Scheduling MACs rely only on the assumption that everyone
can hear the base station (BS); there's no requirement whatever that
peers (SSs) hear each other so the hidden node problem goes away (so in 
v1, SS-to-SS is not well supported).  Many satellite comms algorithms
(e.g. DAMA) fall in this general category, but are anemic by comparison
to .16.  Scheduling MACs can also provide stability under overload /
oversubscription, bandwidth efficiency, and ability to control QoS to
the extent that we can provide deterministic service at layer 2 ... all
of which are important in many situations.  ... but don't have much to
do with MANET.
	What 802.16 does not do well yet is the Wi-Fi ad hoc mode.  We may have
to modify this statement soon as real compliant products start appearing
in the marketplace (the 802.16-2004 standard was ratified in June and
that seems to have uncorked a lot of development).  There are two
developments in IEEE 802 that are germane here:
	1) there is 'mesh' work going on within 802.16 but it's acknowledged as
not being mature in the -2004 version.  
	2) bit of bureaucratic dispute between 802.16, 802.20 and 802.22 about
the terms 'fixed' and 'mobile' in the PARs (charters).  All three
committees (.20 and .22 are much less mature) have both MAC and PHY
development in their charter docs.  But it's not at all clear why either
.20 or .22 need to develop a new MAC -- a little growth and maturity in
the .16 MAC may be all that's needed.... but the 802.16 PAR has the term
'fixed' in it.  These two committees do indeed need to develop new PHY
standards for their particular purposes (cellphone --> packet switch and
TV spectrum reuse for rural, respectively).  

Wi-MAX is going to be interesting in the next few years.  At least some
in the industry are planning to put Wi-Max chipsets in your laptop like
Wi-Fi ones are now.  The shift from infrastructureless to a more
hierarchical layer 2 structure does change some of the MANET tacit
assumptions.

Help?

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 02:36, Giorgio Mulas wrote:
> The main relation between WiFi and Ad hoc networks is that cheap
> WiFi-enabled devices are usually used to build up testbeds for
> MANETs...
>  
> BR.
>  
> Giorgio
>  
>  
>  
>  
>         As we know both are used for the communication between mobile
>         nodes.Or is it the case that WiFi is also a part of Ad Hoc
>         networking ?
>          
>         Best Regards,
>         Parag Goswami
>         ______________________________________________________________
>          Do you Yahoo!?
>         Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
-- 

b

---

From: Mehran Abolhasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:01:25 +1000

Hi,

The main difference between Ad hoc networks and current WiFi networks is that 
Ad hoc networks do not rely on any existing infrastructure (such as base 
station) in order to perform routing. The nodes in Ad hoc networks can all 
act as routers. In WiFi, however, nodes require a base station to 
communicate. Even in "ad hoc mode", most current WiFi devices do not really 
function as an ad hoc node.

Regards,
-- 
Mehran Abolhasan
B.E Computer, PhD
Research Fellow
Telecommunications and IT Research Institute (TITR)
University of Wollongong
Northfields Avenue, NSW, 2522, Australia
Phone: +61 2 4221 3347
Fax: +61 2 4221 3277
http://www.titr.uow.edu.au/~mehran
Email 1: [email-masked]
Email 2: [email-masked] 

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:36 pm, Giorgio Mulas wrote:
> Dear Parag,
> WiFi is a Layer 1 and 2 technology and it is not related with routing
> issues. Ad hoc networking is a research topic considering routing issues
> (and, of course, other important things)
>
> WiFi-enabled devices are usually used to build up testbeds for MANETs...
>
> BR.
>
> Giorgio
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Parag Goswami Sent: mercoledì 27 ottobre 2004 10.45
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [manet] Wi Max?
>
>
> Dear All,
> If anybody tells me the major differences between Ad hoc networking and
> WiFi. As we know both are used for the communication between mobile
> nodes.Or is it the case that WiFi is also a part of Ad Hoc networking ?
>
> Best Regards,
> Parag Goswami
> Yahoo! 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/aac/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/n
>ew_mail/static/ease.html> Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

---

From: "Carlos H. Rentel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:50:45 -0400

Hello,

In my humble opinion though to say MANET is a layer 3 issue is mainly over
simplistic. IEEE 802.11 ("WiFi") or 802.16 (ver. a adapts better to the concept
of MANET, although more accurately speaking is a mesh concept) can not be the
ultimate (particullarly MAC) approach. MANETs is an *all layer* issue (and I am
not necessarily referring to cross-layer design :) ).

Best Regards,

Carlos Rentel

Quoting Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>:

> > issues.
> >         Sent: mercoledÃ¬ 27 ottobre 2004 10.45
> >         To: [email-masked]
> >         Subject: [manet] Wi Max?
> >
> >
> >         Dear All,