Subject: Re: Working Group Issue

From: [email-masked] (Joseph P. Macker)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:57:37 -0400

At  7:31 PM 11/14/96 -0500, Joel Halpern wrote:
>I would like to suggest that if there is indeed need for a working group,
>then I would expect to see discussion of alternatives, issues, and
>protocols on the mailing list.
Thanks to Joel for relieving my suspense.

Timeout from a busy schedule to submit a set of somewhat pedestrian
comments. Please light some fires if you so desire and hang with me (this
is a little longer than I wanted it to be).  I never expected long
dissertations or detailed arguments until there was a working group.  I
know for the moment many of us are still working on these issues on various
projects and will continue to do good things and produce results as we have
been.  This approach will not get us discussing a standard engineering
framework in the near term.  Obviously, that was the idea behind the
working group.  Maybe I can stir a few rumblings onto the list.

Mobile Routing Issues..

RIP, RIPv2 : bad for a static environment..need I say more?

OSPF and cousins: limit mobility (global reaction/convergence) and
potential poor use of bandwidth resources.  If you can waste the bandwidth
fine, but you may never overcome the convergence problem.  Of course this
is optimal when you don't consider the penalties paid for collecting the
routing information or factor in significant rates of change and
convergence.  I think we've seen enough evidence of why this is a problem.

Cluster-based routing: lots of groundwork in this area starting with the
invention in our shop (NRL) in the mid-80s (many key IEEE papers and recent
GloMo extensions to the work).  In short, a highly distributed
backbone-based connectionless routing protocol framework.  Neighbors
dyamically collect themselves and form localized clusters while the
backbone robustly interconnects clusters.  We recently extended this
routing framework in the mid-90s to a highly mobile, multi-hop IP compliant
subnet routing scheme supporting some link layer QoS features.  Simulated
and demonstrated within an operational low bandwidth wireless network
connected to the Internet in 1995 around the Maryland Chesapeake Bay
region.  Even supporting multicast routing as of this year.

.. alright we cared more about ships and didn't shrink this down to a
small,portable equipment suite as they are pursuing under GLoMo, etc.  As I
see it size is an implementation issue. The technology and protocols remain
to build to and consider as alternative approaches.

Some of other interesting approaches (from various colleagues):
We exchanged quite a few ideas on these various approaches over the last
few months.
(esteemed mobile network gurus please chime in with comments :->..)

- Link Reversal/Hybrid routing approach
- WINGS Routing approach
- Demand driven dynamic source routing
- Ad Hoc Distance Vector protocols

FYI, I know of some mobile routing/networking experts who are interested in
participation who are not presently on the mailing list.  Also, there are
probably other worthy candidate frameworks which I have not mentioned.
(e.g., CK Toh's work?, clustered OSPF (BBN)?).

Below are some sample topics I'd like to see discussed more. Some of this
was discussed at recent meetings outside the IETF (e.g., Sept IEEE CC
Workshop Panel Discussion).

- engineering scope of the problem
- performance vs. overhead
- performance vs. rate of change
- performance vs. traffic pattern distribution
- impact and usefulness of metrics (e.g., distance, cost)
- implementation state of various approaches

SOAPBOX: I believe these are not protocols that big router vendors have to
implement necessarily.  That does not mean we do not need open standards
and I believe that such work still belongs in the IETF community if such
networks are to be IP networks.  I envision wireless ad-hoc and mobile
networks to be made up of largely inexpensive handheld devices or laptops,
etc. connecting to a fixed infrastructure at multiple or single sites while
supporting multi-hop routing within their own autonomous systems.  I can't
help but think this proportional lack of interest in a solution is a
"temporary" frustration mobile routing experts will have to bear (like
engineers designing cheap, little cars with great gas mileage in the 60s). 
In wireless technology etc. gas isn't as cheap.  How's the song go? ..The
times they are a changin ..  

---------------------------------------------------------
I'd love to get together informally at the IETF if I can avoid my other
meeting conflicts.  I don't really know my schedule yet, but am open to
suggestions. Look forward to seeing some more intelligent exchange like we
had recently at the last Workshop.

-joe

---

From: Joshua Lamorie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:56:47 -0500 (EST)

Gidday there,

	From the perspective of an enthusiastic lurking undergrad struggling to 
write a driver for his scavenged wireless gear, I would like to throw my 
meagre weight into the effort of creating/using/participating with a 
Working Group.

	As I mentioned once before, my intent is to have some facilities 
to test protocol implementation as _it_ (I'm assuming a single standard is 
the light at the end of the tunnel) moves through the process towards an 
official RFC.

	So my only "raison d'etre" within the Ad-Hoc group would be to 
play with this stuff, and the only way to do it with any useful output, 
is if we are working towards this single standard.  My understanding is 
that this can only be achieved if this becomes an IETF Working Group.

	There that's my input.  Change given on request.

JOshua