Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90

If we start talking vehicle related disruption tolerant networking (delay does not appear to be an issue here), the scalability is a very important issue as is routing.

A Concept of Operations for vehicle disruption tolerant networking (VDTN) would be very useful to understand the issues and scale.

Will

******************************
William D. Ivancic
Phone 216-433-3494
Fax 216-433-8705
Networking Lab 216-433-2620
Mobile 440-503-4892
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic

From: Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com<mailto:benamar73@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 2:08 PM
To: Joerg Ott <jo@netlab.tkk.fi<mailto:jo@netlab.tkk.fi>>
Cc: "dtn-interest@irtf.org<mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>" <dtn-interest@irtf.org<mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>>
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90

This is a good point made by Joerg ! Indeed, deployment of DTN terrestrial applications without the use of the infrastructure is one of the most important aspects especially when it comes to vehicular environment.

Best wishes
نبيل بنعمرو
Nabil Benamar
Moulay Ismail University.
Meknes. Morocco
nabilbenamar.com<http://nabilbenamar.com>

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Joerg Ott <jo@netlab.tkk.fi<mailto:jo@netlab.tkk.fi>> wrote:
On 28.04.2014 13:13, Stephen Farrell wrote:

On 28/04/14 08:54, Joerg Ott wrote:
IIRC, I remarked back then, that adding a To: and From: fields (granted,
you call them differently) to HTTP has been done before (aka SIP).
Let's not repeat this exercise (we know where this can lead to :-)
And, no, I am not suggesting you should be using SIP instead, even
though it would be closer.

It's just that adding feature to a system it wasn't designed for is
going to be as easy as it seems at the first glance (adding routing,
etc.)

That is a danger, yes. But doing minimal changes to 5050 also
has a danger - that the result is never really deployed. So I
think the question for now seems to be whether or not to make
much simpler terrestrial deployment a first class goal for the
putative WG.

I'd like the answer to be "yes," but I do agree that there's
a case that can be made for a minimal-change approach. That
latter is a lot less interesting for me though as I think there
are just very few situations that justify rolling out an entirely
different infrastructure for a DTN.

I don't disagree with this.  But I don't want to be presumptious
on how the answer should look like either (which also implies not
ruling out options).

That aside, one of the most important application on the terrestrial
side is running without infrastructure -- which makes the deployability
(in the sense of "compatibility") question less important.

Jörg

_______________________________________________
dtn-interest mailing list
dtn-interest@irtf.org<mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest