manet, for example (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
Fred Baker
fred at cisco.com
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