manet, for example (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

Christian Kuhtz kuhtzch at corp.earthlink.net
Wed Feb 15 21:52:51 UTC 2006


Fred,

Hmm.  Is self-organizing mesh access network with (some) explicitly  
mobile participants really that dissimilar from what the claimed goal  
of manet is?  Seems to me that's perfectly in scope.

Further, I think if you review the charter for the manet wg you could  
be convinced they're explicitly in scope.  And, from EarthLink  
Municipal Networks perspective, we're hardly a 'wired network'  
operator a la incumbent telco, even though elements of those types of  
networks may help bring our wireless mesh to life in the end.

So, if what we're doing isn't part of manet, what is the appropriate  
industry forum to work out IP routing issues etc?  What is the  
appropriate context for manet if it isn't what I read the charter to  
state?  Is it really just, for example, autonomous devices navigating  
in a sensor network?

Best regards,
Christian

On Feb 15, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> 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