Re: [manet] LOADng-06

[Jaudelice de Oliveira <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ulrich,

On Oct 22, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> Now some differences:
> - Most importantly: LOADng has achieved what DYMO failed to do: to gather broad industrial support from several large companies, several large-scale deployments with several thousands of nodes,

I have joined the list recently, so I probably missed some of the earlier discussion on LOAD-ng MANET deployment experiences. Can you point to documents reflecting MANET results? 

> LOADng has an updated MIB document, and documented interoperability test of at least four recent implementations.

Are you referring to the 2 to 5 LLN node topologies pass/fail testing draft (draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-report-03)? 

> - Part of the reason, I believe, is that the writing style is very different. LOADng has a more algorithmic way of writing. That's immediate to see when you compare section 5.3 of DYMO with section 12 of LOADng. It is, IMO, much harder to implement DYMO. The goal for LOADng was to make it so straight forward to implement that an undergrad student could take the spec, spend a few days implementing it and have a reasonable and interoperable implementation. I have implemented LOADng in one day, based on the specification.

Indeed, my PhD student also followed the specification and coding it was straight forward. However we did have concerns about its performance in LLNs (which the deployment efforts you spoke of seem to be), specially with regards to control overhead and end-to-end delay.  Being a reactive protocol, its dependency on user traffic may overwelm the network, which we did see in our simulation study. I have seen the email from Thierry that commented on results for 2000 nodes AMI PLC network, but did not get a reply to my inquiry with respect to the traffic used.

> The draft started out from where the deployments exist, which some call LLNs. However, as a basic reactive protocol, LOADng also covers the more general MANET case that includes a wider ranger of resources (from extremely constrained to not-so-constrained) and mobility. In particular, by supporting RFC5444 it fits well in the MANET architecture and the surrounding security extensions, flooding optimizations and TLVs etc. for RFC5444.

Again, I may have missed this, but do you have results from deployments with mobile nodes? As you stated, the deployment were the LOADng draft started from were all LLNs, and I am still curious about the details of those studies. Do you have a pointer to a documented study?

> I won't go into details here, but most of the discussions we had were not so much about technical issues, but about procedural. LOADng has started when DYMO was stalled for more than 2 years. I think we have a well mature document, supported by strong industry backing and running code. The latter is crucial in the IETF.
> Best regards
> Ulrich
> 


Best regards,

Jau.


Jaudelice de Oliveira
Associate Professor
ECE Dept, Drexel University