[manet] SMF in Manet and MPR
Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Mon, 21 March 2022 13:08 UTC
Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462393A0105 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id erwwXV1TNoBz for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30D893A19A9 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id r22so19748564ljd.4 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=97/Q/SGHyaSG8svkhtGzyl5Fq1L9bo9cBV9uajgs2hA=; b=Zok/4vvk93wiKs7aPkTBwvmvAWeq2V5uzfVmjdEVvvXwdJA8YEeMmVQlPBFrmJez6O TPpP/DrvK0zPYf2Lpk5SFZMGgyNDyst/G3efMZKVPWT13YL5jil2J2NbVHx4mE1j4A2m fzRIibK0bgSVjscQ8/j620TC+7Daaof8A7kFx2g65Bz+8PPPJG2GGszcWShAIHNtDLfg EGYQYW7YlWmuKxfDtF/IQ7bLVYOBvbqyvC8V6fg1h2R9NTROJI8cd+YlpIT1/Vo7/Wz6 58VFsp5/2KbyBXIuoQfZTpwcRkAV4MThXxrsFMsZqByRADzc0tK9dNqOk3bzcZfr0MlM zjfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=97/Q/SGHyaSG8svkhtGzyl5Fq1L9bo9cBV9uajgs2hA=; b=uFQkCNLdMXY6Yd4zWZ8fcANzcelrNDsA75aQROLGfTLsPxsVkNtdvMglGkDcIA0n4k UFP3DJ8ZlBEC4n7x8Rkp1UtBYPJaM4ZDUV3SUPK1zppJybyQlu43JOzlosAZUfTa+Pp0 2rg2BK5+HpELhyVR4RWmikbtw/1HiQL4yI+BUmb2czKJU+fRdze+YwivOXynPQyVZV2Q dImhU+3LxzV5+gXB8vf+ymgxlAOqVeRj1UciXfP58BLn1tn35V/KQOdYbZ01/CRJah1D FJ+p8k4N31hC485pWt8PI3NKGR8Au3BOxw8Zn/5AhxxjCqve5nocbTI0Hi6QhoAyHwz/ K9iQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532e+KtCghwlTWMQi9x2Y0s5Lwn2VvX5Z+aqrarr/u/t1iVGoKqu ljEfNlTxX6qFwWWSU9q5iRqJtxhYpiLYfEXYkmDXmqFt
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw5J8v6I8prsOcZ/jjXzENhjZq+VmcuxAHKEcheabtb/vW9XCkcAn7cjWpC4o9Effg8aha6jmOuSX/E2vLNwsg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:102c:b0:249:78bb:375f with SMTP id w12-20020a05651c102c00b0024978bb375fmr7594416ljm.281.1647868100696; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 14:06:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvuoAdGeuzESf4VgYVB2xkEBX=t+3Vm4BMn0q37OKx9_jAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/64YiCApCFfAGtyJ20maRqKfV4mE>
Subject: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:08:27 -0000
Hi, I am reacting to the talk during the IETF meeting (chat didn't worked for me for some reason). My trouble with the MPR optimization for SMF (and a bit with SMF in general) is that we currently have no good MPR algorithm for heterogeneous Manet (Manet with multiple different types of radios). The only described MPR algorithm (OLSRv2 appendix) works separately for each interface... which means it always selects MPRs on long-range (and slow) interfaces, which is really not what we want. Of course there is also the problem that SMF completely ignores routing metrics... and the problem that we lack a good dataplane for SMF, which often results in horrible "raw socket trickery"... So in general I would not suggest to people using SMF because I have yet to find an use-case where SMF is doing well. Often an application-specific forwarding strategy is much better than a generic IP one in terms of multicast in Manet. Henning Rogge
- [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Adamson, Robert B CIV USN NRL (5522) Washington DC (USA)
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Adamson, Robert B CIV USN NRL (5522) Washington DC (USA)