Subject: [manet] mesh routing protocols

From: Jon Zeeff <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:33:07 -0400

I have some interest in supporting a local MANet and as I look at what 
protocols one might run, I find that I doubt that any of the ones being 
presented to the IETF would actually work well in real use. Mostly due to 
the selection of non-optimal routes*, congestion of shortest routes, tcps 
behavior when there is any packet loss/delay and routing security problems.

* - hop count is not optimal in any way that real users would care about

Here are MANet attributes I would like to see:

Good performance with tcp - this means best route, not shortest hop 
count.   One must be
very careful about packet loss and packet delay.

Not susceptible to "black hole" routing attacks (or at least some
mechanism to address (route around?) them).   Security built into the 
protocol sounds better
to me than "security will be addressed elsewhere".

Multipath routing (ie, the ability to send duplicate packets via 2 or more
routes so that less packet loss and delay is seen by the receiver. 
Duplicate packets
would be thrown away).

Ability to control bandwidth usage - ie, if too many people are using my
links bandwidth, I need a way to encourage the routing to use alternate
routes (adjustable metrics).

Some type of "fair queuing" congestion control (QOS) to deal with network 
overuse.

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Sanjay Ramaswamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 12:47:37 -0500

Jon,
That's a good list of requirements you have there. In a way, you are 
talking about single solution for all problems. That sounds ideal and 
impressive.

But, don't you think, each of the points you listed should be dealt 
individually (or at least loosely coupled) so that they are incorporated 
based on the requirement of the application? Think that is why we have 
different protocols that suit well for some type of requirement.

Sanjay

--On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:33 AM -0400 Jon Zeeff <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> count.   One must be very careful about packet loss and packet delay.
>
> protocol sounds better to me than "security will be addressed elsewhere".
>
> Duplicate packets would be thrown away).
>