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

Dear Paulo,

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Paulo Mendes <paulo.mendes@ulusofona.pt>
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 <benamar73@gmail.com> 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) <
> william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> In line.
>>
>> On 4/22/15 8:37 AM, "Greg Troxel" <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0)" <william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov> 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 <http://nabilbenamar.ipv6-lab.net/>*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> dtn-interest@irtf.org
> 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.: +351 217 50 50 22
>
>

-- 

Best Regards

نبيل بنعمرو

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