protocols that don't meet the need...

Christian Kuhtz kuhtzch at
Wed Feb 15 00:09:38 UTC 2006


On Feb 14, 2006, at 5:07 PM, David Meyer wrote:
>> Hmm, well, when there is lots of vendor and academia involvement, no,
>> there's no operator community presented in number of things I'm
>> following in the IETF.  Take manet, for example, I don't even know to
>> begin where to inject operator concerns/requirements. :-/
> 	Well taken. And further, I would say manet is more the
> 	rule than the exception in this respect. BTW, it took me
> 	years to become facile with the (IETF) process (if I'm
> 	even there now :-)). I can say that I had excellent
> 	mentoring (Randy and perhaps a few others), so that
> 	helped. Maybe we need something not as formal as an IETF
> 	liaison relationship, but perhaps something like
> 	that. More thinking required...

Thanks for the feedback.  I've been following manet as an interested  
party for a while, with no real mission other than tracking it for  
emerging technologies R&D.  Lately, job is architecting municipal  
wireless networks (which is really far more than what most people  
think of when they think Sbux style WISP hotspots).  And I'm looking  
at the IETF for what's been worked out so far with respect to  
wireless routing protocols for example, and I just can't help sitting  
here scratching my head about how I would ever use what they've come  
up with so far.  And right now, I really can't without major  
modifications it seems.   And I find that really sad actually.

And, don't get me wrong, but I'm not trying to bash them at all.   I  
just think that real world operations needs and concepts like  
wholesale access aren't even anywhere near the radar screen it  
seems.  And that somehow needs to be fixed.  And, yes, municipal  
wireless is a roller coaster that's still gathering speed, so,  
expecting that everything's already grown and ready for us are  
thoroughly unrealistic.  But! ;-)

Right now the routing protocol on the mesh side will likely be  
proprietary for some time, which really isn't in the operator's best  
interest but that's what we have to work with.  I/we have a  
substantial interest in this becoming more than an academic PhD  
thesis exercise, but something that can really be practically used in  
the real world.

Now, there is stuff in the MPLS community, for example, that I've  
followed more or less closely for the past 7 yrs that might actually  
be fruitful, but it too requires substantial tailoring.  So, no  
worries about job security there. ;-)

>> I think this is as much an IETF issue as it is of the operator
>> community.  Operators need to devote time to IETF to make the work in
>> the IETF most relevant to the operators needs.
> 	Yes, and this has always been an acute problem as long as
> 	I've been around. People have day (night, weekend
> 	jobs). Co-location of the meetings seems a possible way
> 	to start attacking one aspect that problem, with the
> 	understanding that perhaps travel isn't the biggest of
> 	the problems, but it is a non-trivial issue for many of
> 	us.

Agreed.  I'm headed to the IEEE 802 plenary in a couple of weeks to  
start working standards body stuff for us as well, some of what needs  
to happen is lower layer stuff.  The less trips and the more I can  
combine them, the more likely my management will look at my travel  
expense submissions in a favorable light ;-)..  So, the more  
incentive we can provide with that, the better.

A while back, there was a desire to colo ARIN with NANOG.  That's  
really cool to see happen.  For me, no offense to anyone, I really  
couldn't care less at the moment.  I'm on the opposite side of the  
spectrum, ARIN being a vehicle for operationalized networks rather  
than those who are about to be operationalized.  So, perhaps NANOG  
should be paired up with other industry forums in some kind of  
rotation..   Anyone got ideas on this?

Best regards,

More information about the NANOG mailing list