Re: [dtn-interest] DTN static routing

[Nabil Benamar <[e-mail]>]

Dear All,

As mentioned by John, our goal could be to write a document describing the
feasibility of static routing in DTN context. Its definition remains the
same as used in Internet ! We have been looking for some documents tackling
this issue but couldn't find any !



On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Sebastian Schildt <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 


Best Regards

نبيل بنعمرو

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