Re: [Roll] Some LLNs are NOT MANETs

C Chauvenet <> Wed, 01 August 2012 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7AD621F84B9; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KPIDhkFaQXlj; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F011921F84B3; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:15:01 +0000
Received: from mail189-co1 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51A94012E; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:15:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI;; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -74
X-BigFish: VPS-74(zzbb2dI98dI9371Ic89bh1432I15caKJzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah107ah)
Received: from mail189-co1 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail189-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1343812499377748_2740; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:14:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0389C0044; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:14:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:14:59 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.16.0175.005; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:14:25 +0000
From: C Chauvenet <>
To: 'Abdussalam Baryun' <>, Henning Rogge <>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Some LLNs are NOT MANETs
Thread-Index: AQHNb7ZZsizvtTQHlkWOqJIDXndu4ZdEqB8w
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:14:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: roll <>, manet <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Some LLNs are NOT MANETs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:15:03 -0000


This is an interesting discussion.

My understanding is that both MANET and ROLL considers lossy/dynamic links in the way described in the MANET charter :  "static and dynamic topologies with increased dynamics due to node motion or other factors." I also agree that dynamicity of links is not hard wired to node mobility.

So, in the LLN Vs MANET debate, I think they share the "N" for Networks, and the 2nd "L" for Lossy.
So the remaining point is the first L, meaning Low Power.

Low Power requirements is explicit in the ROLL charter and not mentioned at all in the MANET charter.
Is the power efficiency consideration the big difference between ROLL and MANET ?


-----Message d'origine-----
De : [] De la part de Abdussalam Baryun
Envoyé : mercredi 1 août 2012 09:22
À : Henning Rogge
Cc : roll; manet
Objet : [Roll] Some LLNs are NOT MANETs

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.


Best Wishes

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK

On 7/31/12, Henning Rogge <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
> subject: Re: [manet] Discussing LOADng suggestions 
> <> 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."
Roll mailing list