Re: [manet] MANET meeting at IETF85

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cédric,

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:16 AM, C Chauvenet <[e-mail]>wrote:

> [...]
>
>
>  The distinction between MANET and LLNs seems to be vanish here.
> This brings us back to the summer discussion between what is a MANET and
> what is a LLN that did not really fostered on a consensus.
> WG chairs could help there, as it is their related scope.
>


I am not suggesting to revive a discussion of the definition of a MANET vs
LLN. I did not bring up this discussion. All I am saying is that MANET is
chartered to come up with a reactive protocol. And I believe it should be
allowed to mention where a protocol is used in deployments.




> My vision is that LLNs are more constrained than MANET for the following
> criterion : Power consumption, Loss of the media, Computation capability,
> Throughput.
> What do you think ?
> My vision is also that the level of constraints of LLNs should not be
> considered in a MANET protocol.
> Do you agree ?
>


Since you ask here...In my personal opinion,  LLNs are a 100% subset of a
MANET. Both are usually multi-hop, often wireless, with constrained
routers, in many cases incoming packets leave a router on the same
interface that they have been received on, and the topology is dynamic.
MANETs, IMO, have a larger range of "constrained routers", from very
constrained routers (e.g. LLN) to somewhat constrained routers (e.g.
community networks) to non-constrained routers (e.g. certain military
deployments). LLN is focused on extremely constrained devices.
However, I don't say that we should revisit the way how the Routing Area
distributed the tasks in the WGs, nor do I suggest to change the charters.




>
>  I'm trying to figure out if LOADng is efficient over a mains-powered
> computer using Wifi, a 8K/48K RAM/ROM device,  or both (cover such a wide
> range would be magical !).
>

I cannot answer this question, as I have not deployed LOADng on a 8K/48K
RAM/ROM device. Those who have deployments and are willing to disclose
details, may have more details. Just one comment: I have implemented
numerous ad-hoc protocols (OLSRv2, LOADng, RPL, DSDV, ...). LOADng is by
far the simplest to implement and has the least lines of code (by far)
compared to all these other protocols that I have implemented. If you can
run any of these beforementioned protocols on such a device, you can
certainly run LOADng on it.



>
>  I see in the interop report
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-report-02 in
> section 3 :
>
> [...]
>
> So my first guess is that LOADng is suitable for what I called
> "mains-powered computer using Wifi" ?
>


I think Jiazi has already replied to that in a later mail. Interop !=
performance test. LOADng (like any other MANET protocol) can run on any
medium. Testing it on wifi is a simple thing to do. Interop tests are
solely to find out if messages can be parsed correctly, and if the
implementations behave according to the specification.

As Jiazi pointed out correctly, I don't understand why we have this
discussion before you have seen the latest LOADng revision.

Best
Ulrich