Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Mon, 09 April 2007 18:11 UTC
Return-path: <manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HayKe-00070u-MK; Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:11:12 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HayKd-00070m-UJ; Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:11:11 -0400
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.83.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HayKb-0008Ei-Ja; Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:11:11 -0400
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id l39IAe96004371; Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:10:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.201] ([132.250.218.64]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.12.43) with SMTP id M2007040914104729909 ; Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:10:47 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240800c24030257477@[192.168.1.201]>
In-Reply-To: <461543A5.4070400@inria.fr>
References: <200704041705.l34H5iDQ028743@s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil> <461543A5.4070400@inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:10:47 -0400
To: Philippe Jacquet <philippe.jacquet@inria.fr>, Justin Dean <jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
From: Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a87a9cdae4ac5d3fbeee75cd0026d632
Cc: 'manet' <manet@ietf.org>, manet-dt@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MANET Design Team <manet-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/manet-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org
I have had some experience with several different military systems that work sans unicast routing. These have included some multicast VoIP (imagine a multi-hop walkie-talkie network) along with some other low duty cycle applications (e.g. position reporting) that are group scope communication (serviceable by SMF) ... there are several cases like this where unicast routing (and its overhead) may be unnecessary, particularly in systems with more limited throughput than the wireless LAN link layer technologies we are used to playing with. While in the past, these have been stand-alone networks, there is increased interest in inter-connecting these networks to backbone or infrastructure networks. Some of these nets may be of limited capacity, etc and be dedicated to a small set of applications/services that are group communications only. These application might tap into multicast data sources from the infrastructure/backbone networks and thus the IP is useful instead of some proprietary protocol suite. The result may be an SMF edge network, multi-hop, but without unicast routing ... You might also imagine SMF co-existing with an on-demand unicast routing protocol that is used somewhat sparingly ... SMF would perform proactive neighborhood discovery to support S-MPR or whatever and the unicast routing would only be invoked upon demand At 8:44 PM +0200 4/5/07, Philippe Jacquet wrote: >A network with never a call to unicast routing? >Do you have an example of this? > >Philippe > >Justin Dean a écrit : >>SMF is designed such that is may run in a stand alone mode where only >>multicast routing is required or it can be run alongside a unicast protocol >>(either sharing information or not). In the past there have been some >>implementations of OLSR which allow for encapsulating packets and using the >>s-mpr forwarding tree to disiminate the packets to all nodes in the network. >>This solution works for some networks but was tied to the running of OLSR. >>SMF takes away that requirement and allows for multicast routing which can >>be independent of what unicast routing protocol may or may not be running on >>the network. >>One application which may help understand the usage might be emergancy >>response teams using wireless VIP to communicate with others who are close >>without any specific need for point to point communication. >> >>Justin >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Philippe Jacquet >>[mailto:philippe.jacquet@inria.fr] Sent: >>Tuesday, April 03, 2007 4:47 PM >>Cc: 'manet'; manet-dt@ietf.org >>Subject: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request >> >>Hello, >> >>About SMF, I am asking some questions for clarification >> >>I don't understand very well the purpose of the protocol. Maybe this is >>because I don't have a clear view of its application context. >> >>Is SMF intended to be the only routing protocol running in a network or will >>it run together with a unicast protocol? >> >>Best regards, >> >>Philippe >> >>_______________________________________________ >>manet mailing list >>manet@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Manet-dt mailing list >>Manet-dt@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt >> > >_______________________________________________ >Manet-dt mailing list >Manet-dt@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt -- Brian Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil> _______________________________________________ Manet-dt mailing list Manet-dt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
- [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Ian Chakeres
- [Manet-dt] Re: [manet] Re: PacketBB Ian Chakeres
- [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Thomas Clausen
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Philippe Jacquet
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Brian Adamson
- [Manet-dt] DYMO RREQ flooding and super-flooding Philippe Jacquet