RE: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks

Hello John and Carlos:

We looked at both stateful and
(INSIGNIA http://comet.columbia.edu/insignia/
stateless (SWAN http://comet.columbia.edu/swan/)
approaches to MANET-QOS. There are papers
and code there.

There are various tradeoffs to consider
but I now feel that the solution space
is more likely to be dominated by
stateless solutions (SWAN is one) because
they are less complex to implement and better suited
to cope with mobility.

I'm sure there are a number of interesting
solutions that lie between these stateful and stateless
approaches. I do not think RSVP in a MANET is a
good idea BTW.

IDs for our work:

INSIGNIA:

http://www.comet.columbia.edu/insignia/draft-ietf-manet-insignia-01.txt

SWAN:

http://comet.columbia.edu/swan/draft-ahn-swan-manet-00.txt

QOS has never really been on the radar screen for the WG
but maybe a good scope item for the new IRTF MANET initiative.

Its still early days for this topic I suspect.

---
Andrew
http://comet.columbia.edu/~campbell

> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet-admin@ietf.org [mailto:manet-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> John Tapsell
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: Carlos García
> Cc: manet@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [manet] QoS on ad-hoc networks
>
>
> Disclaimer:  I know nothing.  My knowledge is incomplete and
> ba and you
> shouldn't trust it at all.
>
> I had a look at this, and had a quite few problems trying to
> set up such a
> network.  Basically what I managed to learn was:
>   * The idea has been around longer than I've been alive.
>   * Hardly anyone seems to be working on it.
>   * RSVP was played about with a lot, but died on adhoc's
> because it is
> trying to enforce stateful connections on a stateless network.
>   * You need to have a very clear idea of what properties
> your network has.
> How much everything moves about, whether there are groupings,
> whether there
> are fixed points, etc.
>   * If things are going to be moving about, then the QoS is
> basically doomed
> :)   So switch your focus on looking whether best-effort is
> good enough.
>   * Implementations of various QoS systems for linux are in a
> bad state.  An
> implementation of dRSVP that I tried to set up had bugs that
> the author was
> still trying to fix.  ( I found that out _after_ spending
> ages trying to find
> out what was wrong).  I did manage to get another
> implementation of dRSVP
> working tho.  Although this was through a lot of sweat and
> blood - mostly due
> to my ignorance in this area.  I still don't really get the
> whole class based
> queueing system.
>   * If you want to study QoS, make sure you study and
> understand routing on
> adhocs first.
>   * It seems to me, in my very humble opinion, that there
> isn't likely to be a
> 'wonder' protocol that works on any network, but rather you
> need to evaluate
> the network closely and see what fits best.
>
> Take what I've said with a pinch of salt, but I hope I can
> help in some small
> way.
>
> JohnFlux
>
> On Thursday 23 January 2003 3:35 pm, Carlos García wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > I am very interesting in the support of QoS on adhoc networks.
> >
> > I will be very pleased if someone could help me finding
> papers or proyects
> > related to this subject.
> >
> > Thank you very much,
> >  Carlos García
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > manet mailing list
> > manet@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet