[Roll] Some LLNs are NOT MANETs

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Henning,

I am about to say many LLNs are NOT MANETs but it seems like the
market or community will decide the outcome, but surly that some LLNs
are NOT MANETs.

> Could you state an example what would be considered a LLN but not a
> MANET. I normally consider LLNs a subset of what we call MANETs.

I not totally agree with that, because we need to be considering both
NETs use case and applicability in the vision of the different WGs
(MANET and ROLL). There are many examples we can find them in the
[RFC2501] for MANETs characteristics and applicability, and for LLNs
characteristics in [RFC5548], [RFC5673], [RFCRFC5826], and [RFC5867]
including LLNs requirements. That is why I suggested before that
OLSRv2 and AODVv2 should mention their applicability to LLN if they
do. They just refer to RFC2501, but RFC2501 is OLD and does not
mention LLN but describes the meaning. The authors of RFC2501 still
not responded to my update suggestions.

I understood from one discussion in MANET WG that few don't have time
to read many pages of documents, so that is why I suggested to have
terminology I-D [1] as we have ROLL terminology [ROLL] . I also taken
initiative to make new draft of  MANET subnet technologies which
include only related LLNs [AB2].

Therefore, I will add the definition for MANET and LLN into my
manet-terminology draft [AB1] (propose that authors of [ROLL] define
LLN more details) to assist discussions as it is proved now in the
list that there still is problems in definitions in MANET WG or in
some I-D editorial content.

[AB1] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-baryun-manet-terminology-00.txt
[AB2] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-baryun-manet-technology-00.txt
[ROLL] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-roll-terminology-06.txt

Best Wishes

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK

====================================================
On 7/31/12, Henning Rogge <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
> subject: Re: [manet] Discussing LOADng suggestions
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> IMHO this protocol was intended as for ROLL WG not for MANET WG, but
>> then changed its direction to MANET [3]. However, please note that
>> *ONLY* some LLNs are MANETs, and *ONLY* some MANETs are LLNs. That
>> said, LOADng SHOULD specfy where is its limits. Then we can discuss
>> adoption.
>
> Could you state an example what would be considered a LLN but not a
> MANET. I normally consider LLNs a subset of what we call MANETs.
>
> Henning Rogge
>
> --
> Steven Hawkings about cosmic inflation: "An increase of billions of
> billions of percent in a tiny fraction of a second. Of course, that
> was before the present government."
>