North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: manet, for example (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
- From: Fred Baker
- Date: Wed Feb 15 18:24:51 2006
- Authentication-results: imail.cisco.com; [email protected]; dkim=pass (message from cisco.com verified; );
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2660; t=1140046000; x=1140478200;c=relaxed/simple; s=nebraska; h=Subject:From:Date:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version;d=cisco.com; [email protected]; z=From:Fred=20Baker=20<[email protected]>|Subject:Re=3A=20manet,=20for=20example=20(Re=3A=20protocols=20that=20don't=20meet=20the=20need...)|To:Christian=20Kuhtz=20<[email protected]>;X=v=3Dmtcc.com=3B=20h=3DikWMfY76L5mW1+YtaOqQ+rLDHIE=3D; b=QTojdzx3JdyQVnOzvIGgWcWpJv5NiDDgjEB5QThRw6SAB43QyEbqWQpTtRbvZxq+lJfVLNs25cYhE991RoFvgxkSkTzbeesl1ge0jHgsUdwdZTxU99X8dvmWlBHrVFeuHGPEZ8cHkWnSwfQ79Psed4HiV01kVOSYj6w7CDucr4E=;
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. :-/
|