protocols that don't meet the need...
Fred Baker
fred at cisco.com
Wed Feb 15 21:35:31 UTC 2006
The big question there is whether it is helpful for an operator of a
wired network to comment on a routing technology for a network that
is fundamentally dissimilar from his target topology. Not that there
is no valid comment - the security issues are certainly related. But
if you want to say "but in my continental or global fiber network I
don't plan to run a manet, so this is entirely stupid" - which is
nearly verbatim the operator comment I got in a discussion of manet
routing in a university setting three years ago - the logical answer
is "we didn't expect you to; do you have comments appropriate to a
regional enterprisish network whose 'core' is a set of unmanned
airplanes flying in circles and connects cars, trucks, and other
kinds of vehicles?".
So operators are certainly welcome in a research group, but I would
suggest that operator concerns/requirements be tailored to
operational use of a manet network in a context where it *is*
appropriate.
On Feb 14, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Christian Kuhtz 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. :-/
More information about the NANOG
mailing list