protocols that don't meet the need...

Fred Baker fred at
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*  

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