Re: [dtn-interest] New routing solutions?

["Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0)" <[e-mail]>]

I don't routing is done with PROPHET.  I believe there is much much work needed for routing and other items.  If the research group is willing to do work, I think this is a worthy item.  It is research and anything learned can be applied here or elsewhere.

I the spirit of "Disconnection Tolerant Networking", I think DTNRG is the place to be.  But, without much participation, you may be better off as an individual submission.

From: waldir moreira <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:28 PM
To: William Ivancic <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] New routing solutions?

Dear Will,

Thanks for the email.

I agree with you regarding the access to connectivity in urban settings. However, in many situations (and considering I dont want to pay 3G access), I still find myself in "shadowed" areas (tons of closed APs, lots of resourceful peers around that I dont know about their capabilities), and maybe with such solution we could mitigate such situations.

Still, this situation and the ones you mention are application scenarios, each with their own challenges (privacy, reliability, to name a few) and very good ones.

But the point I raise here is that if it is enough for users to "bring their own or do simple store-carry-and-forward",  does it mean that regarding routing the DTNRG is done with PROPHET?

Cheers,


Waldir

________________________________
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] New routing solutions?
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:39:27 +0000

Waldir,

Unfortunately most activity in DTNRG has dried up over the past two years.  I'm sure you noticed.

My understanding is the the IETF DTN Working Group is not sanctioned to work routing at this time.  So, DTNRG is the place for this.

I do like your overall approach.  However, in Urban environments, I am generally not disconnected and can use email or dropbox or a whole lot of other alternatives to communicate.

On the surface, I think it would be useful for something like what is going on in Syria.  But, when thinking of practical use, I don't think I want anyone knowing who I have come in contact with in such situations. It would put all my contacts in danger.

IMHO, first responders already have solutions for communications.  They either bring their own or do simple store-carry-and-forward via file transfers when the return to home base.

Will

From: waldir moreira <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:16 AM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [dtn-interest] New routing solutions?

Dear colleagues,

Recently our draft on social-aware opportunistic routing has expired (http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-moreira-dlife-04.txt).

Despite of a first interest from the DTNRG by the time of its first appearance, our draft has not received any technical feedback as expected (it remained as individual submission and no stream defined).

Thus, the intention of this email is to check with my colleagues whether there is any interest from the DTNRG (or its IETF WG counterpart) on new routing solutions.

I recall that some emails were exchanged about a generic framework to allow better development of new solutions, but that didnt go far as well.

Be it for new routing approaches or for a generic routing framework, we would be more than happy to contribute if there is still any interest from this RG in such direction.

Best regards,

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>