Subject: [manet] Comments Solicitation on a new draft for MANETs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:32:23 +0200

Dear members,

We proposed a new draft describing a new protocol based on simple mechanisms to provide QoS in MANETs.

The draft is available at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kettaf-manet-acor-00.txt

Please take a minute to read it and if you have any comments, please email me.

Best Regards,

Noureddine Kettaf
-------
Noureddine Kettaf
Haute Alsace University
34, rue de Grillenbreit 68008 Colmar
France

Phone:+33 (0) 389 202 368
Fax: +33 (0) 389 202 359

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

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:20:21 +0100

The MANET WG is working on two standards track routing protocols: DYMO
and OLSRv2.
Rather than a new routing protocol, QoS mechanisms to be considered by
the MANET WG
will want to build on these - which means at this stage ensuring that
these have the
necessary features, hooks, etc. to implement whatever QoS (or other)
mechanisms
that will be required.

  _____ 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 23 June 2006 09:32
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] Comments Solicitation on a new draft for MANETs

Dear members,

We proposed a new draft describing a new protocol based on simple
mechanisms to provide QoS in MANETs.

Please take a minute to read it and if you have any comments, please
email me.

Best Regards,

Noureddine Kettaf
-------
Noureddine Kettaf
Haute Alsace University

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:33:00 +0200

Hi Alicia,

Thank you for your interest :)

>Dear Noureddine:

>I have read your draft and, as you suggested, I enclose my comments.

>In my opinion, the main disadvantage of your routing protocol is related to
>the measurement of the QoS parameters. I mean, how can you know the channel
>bandwidth in wireless networks? As far as I know, this parameter varies
>with the movement of nodes. If the reservation of the resources is
>performed, how can you assure it is maintained? Additionally, the
>interferences of nodes should be taken into account.

The proposed protocol deals mainly with the IP layer, however, the problem of bandwidth estimation is related to the MAC layer which is not actually the scope of MANET WG. In our draft we assumed that the estimation is based on an efficient and reliable mechanism to avoid the problems related to hidden and exposed nodes. On the other hand, we provided a solution for this problem (available bandwidth estimation, mobility, interferences, etc.) I will communicate it to you asap.

>Another issue is related to the forwarding of Route Request messages. For
>example, if node A sends a RREQ to node D and nodes B, an intermediate
>node, receives it, it will reply to  the first RREQ it receives (according
>to the RREQ_ID). Therefore, only one route is discovered per RREQ (not
>including the reverse routes), and it will be associated to the minimum
>delay. But what happens if my QoS requirements do not include any
>restriction about delay but about Bandwidth? Maybe, it will be recommended
>to use an alternative path.

The route request is sent by broadcast to reach the maximum possible of nodes present in the network to obtain many routes, thus, to reduce the overhead the intermediate node re-transmits the first received RouteRequest. Since the cost related to the sub-path (intermediate node -> destination) will be equal , so it is better (in our opinion) to re-transmit one instead of several route requests.

>I also wondered if you have performed any simulation work about this
>routing protocol.

YES,

>I hope that my comments can help you.

Thank you again, and if you have other comments, please, don't hesitate ;)

Regards,
Noureddine Kettaf

>Phone:+33 (0) 389 202 368

Alicia Triviño                               / Tl. +34-95.213.71.91
Dpto. Tecnologia Electronica
E.T.S. Ing. Telecomunicacion
Universidad de Malaga
Campus Universitario de Teatinos
29071 Malaga, Spain

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:43:39 +0200

Hi Alicia,

YES,

Regards,
Noureddine Kettaf

---

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:40:28 -0400

Inline [RRR].

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 6:33 AM
To: Alicia Triviño
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] Re: Comments Solicitation on a new draft for MANETs

Hi Alicia, 

>interferences of nodes should be taken into account.

The proposed protocol deals mainly with the IP layer, however, the problem
of bandwidth estimation is related to the MAC layer which is not actually
the scope of MANET WG. In our draft we assumed that the estimation is based
on an efficient and reliable mechanism to avoid the problems related to
hidden and exposed nodes. On the other hand, we provided a solution for this
problem (available bandwidth estimation, mobility, interferences, etc.) I
will communicate it to you asap.

[RRR] Alicia is right that the throughput capacity (bandwidth) of the MANET
also depends on the speeds of the mobile nodes (published simulation results
have confirmed this fact). Now, if the physical/MAC layer bandwidth changes
due to the speeds of the mobile nodes, the IP layer bandwidth will also
change. So, the bandwidth estimation between the mobile nodes will be a
function of speeds of the mobile nodes, multi-path interferences, and many
other factors. The speed of the mobile nodes is another serious contributor
in effecting the throughput capacity in MANET. In technical term, people
also provide requirements in MANET like mobile through capacities in
different speeds of the mobile nodes.

[RRR] So, we expect that the problem that you have solved for the bandwidth
estimation in the IP layer will include the effects of speeds of the mobile
nodes, multi-path interferences, and other factors. Is this the correct
assumption.

[RRR] Is it possible to send your paper to this list just to know how you
addressed the problem of estimation of the bandwidth in MANET?