Re: [manet] MANET Protocol Applicability

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

Op 8 jun. 2012, om 12:00 heeft John Dowdell het volgende geschreven:

> I must say I agree with Chris. Even in my limited experience, the point of MANETs is that you should be able to use whatever you need as the L1/L2 transport. IP over anything that will take it; HF using STANAG 5506, satcom, 802.11, proprietary mesh networking, to name but a few. Each has its own strange foibles and it's up to the integrator to decide what is best for the task in hand. This is in the same vein as the subnet discussion earlier; MANET WG should not (IMHO) seek to define a policy because it will not fit every eventuality, of which there will be many and legion.
> 
> Having said that, some comments from clever people familiar with the current state of the art of implementation of MANETs for multi-agency disaster relief would be welcome, if any care to give them.
As dummy, I didn't feel addressed. But struggling with getting things done for multi-agency disaster relief, I can tell that I am not interested in discussions for finding best solutions for undefined scenario's. Improved interoperability is what I am looking for. Using IP helps, using proprietary sub-IP technology does not. It gets worse when security and apps get in scope.

With some experience from the customer side of the table, I say it is _not_ up to the integrator to decide what technology to use. I have to deal with multiple, making their own decisions. This needs to be standardized.

Teco

> 
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> Sent: 08 June 2012 09:58
> To: Abdussalam Baryun; manet
> Subject: Re: [manet] MANET Protocol Applicability
> 
> Being explicit about L2 technologies is exactly what MANET should not do. At least not in any limiting way. Of course if someone were to write an informative draft about (say) using OLSRv2 over IEEE 802.11 that would be fine. Though it would run the risk of suggesting to some that that is the only L2 suggested,, so I'd want the draft to make it clear that wasn't so. And anything that said OLSRv2 was intended for use over the following L2 protocols would be completely wrong. The point of routing at L3 is to be as L2 independent as possible.
> 
> If I've read the draft you mention it was a long time ago. Digging up 1998 drafts to reissue doesn't strike me as the most productive possible exercise.
> 
> -- 
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> Tel: [phone] |  Fax: [phone]
> [e-mail] | http://www.baesystems.com
> 
> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
> Sent: 08 June 2012 04:42
> To: manet
> Subject: [manet] MANET Protocol Applicability
> 
> ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
> This message originates from outside our organisation,
> either from an external partner or from the internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi Folks
> 
> I have read two important inputs and want to share my opinion,
> 
> ============  point 1  ============
> 
> In one work in progress ietf-draft (expired):  draft-ietf-manet-appl-00.txt,
> Corson, (1998)mentioned in Abstract and Introduction:
> 
> Abstract> The intent of this 'Applicability Section' is to
> aid readers unfamiliar with the details of each protocol's design in
> understanding the protocol's basic characteristics, functioning and
> mechanisms, as well as to provide a general description of the
> networking context for which the protocol was designed, and in which
> it is expected to perform well.
> 
> Introduction> The set of applications for which the use of MANET
> technology envisioned is diverse, ranging from small,
> energy-constrained nearly
> static networks to large-scale, mobile, highly-dynamic networks. The
> combinations of network size, topology composition and dynamics,
> bandwidth and energy availability, physical and link-layer
> technologies, intended application usages, etc. are many, and it seems
> unlikely that a single protocol will function superiorly over this
> wide range of networking contexts. Thus a given protocol is likely to
> be well-suited for operation in those networks whose characteristics
> match well with the combination of mechanisms employed by the
> protocol.
> ============  point 2  ==============
> In the MANET WG 77 meeting minutes, Mr.Clausen mentioned that it is
> important to be explicit about assumptions/conditions before talking
> about protocol.
> ============  opinion  ==============
> I agree with both points and approach to solve routing protocols, and
> would RECOMMEND either of the following:
> 1- MANET WG defines (in one informative-draft) intended application
> usage, and be explicit about applicable L2 network technologies. So
> that each future protocols mentions in their applicability statement
> section the usual use-case for such protocol, OR
> 2- MANET WG renews the I-D expired of Corson (1998) and adds more
> issues so it can become an RFC in future,
> 
> Thanking you,
> Abdussalam Baryun
> =========================
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> 
> 
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet