Re: [manet] MANET meeting at IETF85

[Cedric-2 LAVENU <[e-mail]>]

Dear Cédric,

I'm not sure all this discussions really make sense :

> An LLN network is definitely a type of MANET according to what Adrian 
said (he has been quoted several times in the past mails). One of the 
fileds LOADng is intended to be used are AMI PLC networks with low 
bandwidth (few kbps in the harshest environments), but can be extensible 
to other types of MANETs.

And regarding your comment about experience with LOADng :

> LOADng is a protocol for which several running implementations exist and 
interoperate as shown in draft : 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-report-02
> In addition, LOAD (the previous version) was successfully run in a 2000 
PLC node trial.

I think that all the facts are on the table to say that LOAD would be 
suitable for MANETs (LLNs being a subset of MANETs). In addition field and 
lab experience does exist and demonstrated that LOADng can be very 
efficient.

Regards,
Cédric

 
Cédric LAVENU
Research Engineer
EDF – R&D
MIRE Department
1 avenue du général de Gaulle
92141 CLAMART - FRANCE
 
[e-mail]
Tél. : [phone]
Fax : [phone]

Un geste simple pour l'environnement, n'imprimez ce message que si vous en 
avez l'utilité.




De :    [e-mail]
A :     [e-mail], [e-mail]
Cc :    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], 
[e-mail]
Date :  15/10/2012 18:01
Objet : Re: [manet] MANET meeting at IETF85
Envoyé par :    [e-mail]



Hi ulrich and Thomas 

Le 15 oct. 2012 à 17:22, Ulrich Herberg a écrit :

Hi JP, 


On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:28 PM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <
[e-mail]> wrote:
[...]

JP> Here we do not disagree at all. I am not saying that reactive 
protocols are not appropriate in a number of scenario. All I am saying is 
that *if* you intent to specify
a reactive routing protocol for LLNs, knowing the years of intense work 
and efforts of the ROLL WG, then it should be discussed with a wider 
audience. 


I agree. But that's not we are intending to do. We intent to produce a 
reactive protocol for MANETs, which is requested by the MANET charter. 
LOADng is a protocol that covers all the use cases of MANETs, one of which 
being LLNs.
And yes, the introduction and title of the draft needs to be changed


 
On the other
hand, if your explicitly exclude LLNs from your protocol in your protocol, 
it is no longer required to involve the ROLL WG. The objective is simply 
to avoid WG charter
overlap but more importantly try to benefit from the benefit of experts in 
the area of LLNs to build a good protocol for the Internet.

I am personally against removing to mention a use case where as a matter 
of fact the protocol is used in (as *one* use-case out of many).

Citing Adrian from the last MANET meeting:
Adrian Farrell: If you were to pick up a reactive protocol for MANET, you 
would be in charter. If you pick up a protocol and your main use case is 
for LLNs, you have diverged from charter. Main use case is delicate thing 
to talk about. It is clear that some if not all LLNs are MANET. Not all 
MANETs are LLNs. So you need to be producing a single reactive protocol 
for MANETs, not for *some* MANETs. You need to be clear that the protocol 
you work on is applicable across all MANETs. If that picks up some LLNs 
across the way, no big deal, but it should not be main use case. Look at 
all use cases for MANETs and make sure you address all of those.

You'll not the "If that picks up some LLNs across the way, no big deal, 
but it should not be main use case".

That is why I asked in a previous mail the nature of LOADng deployments 
you were talking about.
I cannot find any material on this.
If they are LLN, then it seems in disagreement with what Adrian suggest.


This is exactly what we intend to do.



It was also agreed at the last MANET meeting that if LOADng was to be 
considered for MANET, it needs to de-emphasize LLNs (which I have not 
heard anybody disagree with so far). So I don't understand what we are 
even discussing here. 

JP> No, this your recollection of the discussion. "less-focussed" or 
"de-emphasize" was I think your interpretation. Mine was "not referring to 
LLNs" at all. 


I sincerely suggest to wait until you read the new revision, as this 
discussion is hypothetical without that. 

Agree that the new version should be a good point of discussion.

Best,

Cédric.


 
Otherwise, it should be reviewed by both WGs (to be discussed between 
chairs and AD).

Best
Ulrich 
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet





Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes (ci-après le 'Message') sont établis à l'intention exclusive des destinataires et les informations qui y figurent sont strictement confidentielles. Toute utilisation de ce Message non conforme à sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication totale ou partielle, est interdite sauf autorisation expresse.

Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce Message, il vous est interdit de le copier, de le faire suivre, de le divulguer ou d'en utiliser tout ou partie. Si vous avez reçu ce Message par erreur, merci de le supprimer de votre système, ainsi que toutes ses copies, et de n'en garder aucune trace sur quelque support que ce soit. Nous vous remercions également d'en avertir immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour du message.

Il est impossible de garantir que les communications par messagerie électronique arrivent en temps utile, sont sécurisées ou dénuées de toute erreur ou virus.
____________________________________________________

This message and any attachments (the 'Message') are intended solely for the addressees. The information contained in this Message is confidential. Any use of information contained in this Message not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval.

If you are not the addressee, you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return message.

E-mail communication cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free.