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

Fred Baker fred at
Wed Feb 15 23:23:32 UTC 2006

then fine, I agree that a manet network run by an operator is in  
scope. I was responding to the comments I have already gotten from  
network operators who have dumped all over me when I mentioned manet.

On Feb 15, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Christian Kuhtz wrote:

> 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