Re: [dtn-interest] [dtn] DTN static routing

[Nabil Benamar <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Waldir!
I will try these protocols in ONE !

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:49 AM, waldir moreira <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Nabil,
>
> You can find dLife and its community version in the same link you
> mentioned on your email, under the user contribution section. There you
> will also find a the social-aware content-based opportunistic routing
> protocol, SCORP. There is nothing static about them as they are for the
> dynamic scenario we have witnessed for some year now.
>
> http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/dtn/theone/#contrib
>
> BR,
>
> Waldir Aranha Moreira Junior, Ph.D.
> Researcher at the Association for Research and Development in Cognition
> and People Centric Computing - COPELABS
> Invited Professor at University Lusofona - ULHT/ULP
> External collaborator of the Research Group on Computer Networks and
> Multimedia Communications - GERCOM/UFPA
> LinkedIn profile <http://www.linkedin.com/in/waldirmoreira>
>
>
> > From: [e-mail]
> > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 23:56:36 +0200
> > To: [e-mail]
> > CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [dtn] [dtn-interest] DTN static routing
>
> >
> > Hello Nabil,
> >
> > I wasn't at the DTNWG session, so I can not say what was discussed, but
> I have the feeling not everybody has the same idea when talking about
> "static routing",
> >
> > Intuitively I would also argue that there is nothing to „work on" with
> regard to static routing. Of course implementations such as DTN2 or IBR-DTN
> already support static in such a way that you can configure rules such as
> „Forward packets matching this pattern to such and such EID". Granted, you
> might argue that current implementations are not flexible enough regarding
> how to specify such routes. But I would see this as an implementation
> issue, i.e. make feature requests (or better: submit pull requests :) ) to
> DTN2, ION or IBR-DTN.
> >
> > Thinking more broadly this might lead to issues of "firewalling" and
> more flexible rules to route, mangle and redirecting bundles. As in
> „BPTables“ (which we had on the agenda for IBR-DTN for quite some time, but
> so far have only implemented partially). However, again I would say:
> Implementation issues.
> >
> > When talking about working on something in the WG/RG I would expect some
> draft/RFC (hopefully with a working implementation to back it) to be the
> goal of any endeavours. So can you maybe state again
> > - What do you mean with „static routing“? What challenges need to be
> solved?
> > - What do you expect to be the outcome of working on/discussing it? A
> document? What kind? Some code?
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 23 Apr 2015, at 23:40, Nabil Benamar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Paulo,
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Paulo Mendes <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Dear Nabil
> > >
> > > For me it makes no sense to talk about static routing when we are
> talking about networks that should be able exploit any forwarding
> opportunistic to overcome the problem of facing intermittent Internet
> connectivity. If you’re talking about Delay-tolerant Networks as in
> transmissions over long delay links, it makes no sense to talk about
> routing at all, since the problem is more a reliable transport problem.
> > >
> > > ​Not sure of the point! Many routing protocols in DTN are known and
> used (see http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/dtn/theone/)
> > > ​
> > > On the other hand if you are talking about Disruptive-tolerant
> Networks, then you need dynamic routing to overcome the intermittent
> connectivity, implementing a store-carry-forward algorithm.
> > >
> > > ​In DTN, the store-carry-forward paradigm is also used.​
> > >
> > > What chairs are you referring to? It should be from the new DTNWG and
> not from DTNRG.
> > >
> > > ​Exact! It was during DTNwg session​ ​in Dallas.
> > > ​
> > > To the best of my knowledge there were presented at least two routing
> proposals to DTNRG. One is Prophet, which is now RFC6693, and the other is
> dLife (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moreira-dlife/ ). dLife
> last version is the fourth one. In the meantime, due to lack of feedback,
> we didn’t releases version 5 in the DTNRG. Currently dLife is being
> exploited in the European project UMOBILE (http://www.umobile-project.eu).
> > >
> > > ​May I ask whether dLife is implemented in any network simulator ?​
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >> On 22 Apr 2015, at 15:18, Nabil Benamar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for your insights and comments!
> > >> In fact, I have suggested during the DTN session in Dallas why not to
> work on Dynamic routing instead of static routing. I got an answer from the
> chairs that we don't know which routing protocols could be considered !!
> And this is the reason that pushed John and I to volunteer for static with
> the intention to provide a document (short or detailed ) on the aspect !
> > >>
> > >> We do static routing in some cases even if Dynamic routing is
> available. It's the case when one wants a stable path (through a firewall)
> for the packets.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >> In line.
> > >>
> > >> On 4/22/15 8:37 AM, "Greg Troxel" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >"Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0)" <[e-mail]>
> writes:
> > >> >
> > >> >> My understanding is Static mean hard wired. You know what, where
> and
> > >> >>when
> > >> >> - similar to IP static routing where you know what and where. No
> > >> >>protocol
> > >> >> is involved. It is simply configuration. You propagate the
> forwarding
> > >> >> table.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If I recall correctly, static routes usually get preference over
> dynamic
> > >> >> routes.
> > >> >
> > >> >That makes sense. I wonder then what it means to work on it
> > >>
> > >> Me too.
> > >>
> > >> >- to fix up
> > >> >the reference implementation so that it has equivalents to "netstat
> -r",
> > >> >"route add", etc.? Or to write a document giving guidance to people
> > >> >deciding which static routes to add? Or ?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I guess one thing would be to state whether or not the "when" is
> required.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> A second is to state whether "Static" or "Dynamic" has precedence.
> > >> Actually, I prefer dynamic if it is available. If you are doing Static
> > >> routing, it is because you do not have Dynamic routing. Static tends
> to
> > >> get you in trouble. We may think we know all, but we usually don't.
> > >>
> > >> I think this should be a very short document. Maybe it could actually
> be
> > >> incorporated into 5050bis or some other document that states default
> > >> assumptions.
> > >>
> > >> Will
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> nabilbenamar.ipv6-lab.net
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> dtn-interest mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> > >
> > > Melhores Cumprimentos/Best Regards/Mit Freundlichen Gruessen
> > > Paulo Mendes
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
> > > Vice-director of the Research Unit in Cognition and People Centric
> Computing (COPELABS)
> > > Director of the Ph.D program on Informatics - New Media and Pervasive
> Systems (NEMPS)
> > > Associated Professor at University Lusofona, Portugal
> > >
> > > http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt/~pmendes
> > > Tel.: [phone]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > > نبيل بنعمرو
> > >
> > > nabilbenamar.ipv6-lab.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dtn-interest mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dtn mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
>



-- 


Best Regards

نبيل بنعمرو

*nabilbenamar.ipv6-lab.net <http://nabilbenamar.ipv6-lab.net/>*