Subject: Jane, stop this crazy thing.

From: [email-masked] (Joseph P. Macker)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 11:41:06 EST

Dave:
As per my last warning. Please stop forwarding dummy reply messages to
Scott's post back to the mailing list..its really annoying!! (see my last
massage).  Operator error? If your mailer's broken get it fixed!  If you
believe it to be a Majordomo problem (I doubt it) inform me.

Please get back to me.  If I do not hear from you regarding this, I'll have
to consider list removal.
-Joe

    _/      _/ _/_/_/_/  _/       Joseph P. Macker, Code 5544
   _/_/    _/ _/     _/ _/        Naval Research Laboratory
  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/_/  _/         Center for High Assurance Computer Systems
 _/    _/_/ _/   _/   _/          [email-masked]
_/      _/ _/     _/ _/_/_/_/     http://tonnant.itd.nrl.navy.mil/macker.html

---

From: [email-masked] (Joseph P. Macker)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 09:48:20 EST

>     Joe,
>     
>     For some reason, my system stripped my comments out of my reply in the 
>     process of sending the message even though my log copy has the 
>     comments. I will get the problem fixed. My comments are as follows:
>     
>     Multicast:     Multicast is not too important to the mobile tactical 
>     user. He is more interested a reliable source directed 
>     multidestination capability and needs an efficient way of providing 
>     this.
>     
>     Other Issues:    The impact of mobility of the tactical users on the 
>     operation of OSPF must be accommodated. The resulting increase in 
>     network overhead traffic and routing table settling time must be 
>     addressed for these low bandwidth high error networks.
>     
>     Security:     Multilevel security becomes an issue because different 
>     classification levels must be supported on the single net that is 
>     available to the tactical users. This is also an area that should 
>     probably be delayed to a later time.
>     
>     
>     Dave    Sorry again about the problem. I am working  on the Army 
>     Tactical Internet for Task Force XXI and am very much interested in 
>     these mobility issues. I do want to continue to work with your group 
>     in the future.
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator 
Dave:
Thanks for getting back to me quickly..
I am reposting your comments to the group.

Sorry for the terse warnings.  I certainly want you to stick around and
participate, especially since Task Force XXI is a good candidate for this
technology.  Since the list mailer explodes to alot of destinations its
good to nip problems in the bud!  It would nice if a list mailers could do
something efficient with distribution like reliable multicast rather than
brute force source-directed multidestination delivery, eh eh ;-).. but I
guess it's not important.
-joe

---

From: [email-masked] (Joseph P. Macker)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 13:54:20 EST

>     multidestination capability and needs an efficient way of providing 

I believe  multicast is very important to the tactical user. Actually, I
believe it is more important and more efficient than unicast,especially for
situational awareness dissemination.  The source directed multidestination
capability is a "somewhat" orthogonal (e.g., session layer).  There are
certainly cases where this is needed.  The Navy is building towards a
multicast infrastructure in future mobile networks.  Through my work with
DISA several Army team players have shown a strong interest in multicast
support, but there has been reluctance due to the uncertainties of session
control.  Multicast remains a means to achieving multidestination
efficiency that is scalable.

>     addressed for these low bandwidth high error networks.

Yeah, the Army has a scalability problem here.  We (Navy networking R&D)
have done wireless M-OSPF for a few years now, but our autonomous domains
are limited in size so we don't have as severe an overhead problem.

...collecting global link state knowledge is a severe price to pay in the
mobile environment.  The goal of the mobile mesh WG (or whatever its
called) is to explore routing approaches which provide improved efficiency
and scalabilty. What functionality we trade off to achieve that goal is a
subject for debate.  Tweaking OSPF-like approaches may or may not be the
best engineering approach.
>     probably be delayed to a later time.

Hmmm, good luck.  my group works MLS solutions and network security issues
for the Navy and I am confused about what specific requirements you
envision at the network/link layer. Please elaborate..  
>     these mobility issues. I do want to continue to work with your group 
Please don't feel bad..everyone is welcome.  I was just playing my role of
mailing list engineer and am not policing membership!
Full steam ahead...:-)
-Joe