Subject: [manet] Non IP-based MANETs

From: Christophe Jelger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:12:32 +0100

Hello all,

I'm looking for references of MANET protocols that are not based on IP 
like for example non-IP based routing protocols (e.g. LUNAR) or anything 
that is not "IP-centric".

If someone knows some good references I'd grateful if you could please 
let me know about them. Note that I do not refer to sensornets or DTN 
but strictly to MANET papers.

thanks in advance,
Christophe

-- 
--------------------------------------------------
Christophe Jelger, University of Basel
Computer Networks Group, http://cn.cs.unibas.ch/
Bernoullistrasse 16, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland

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

---

From: "Joe Macker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:25:39 -0500

Christophe:

Variants of most protocols being specified/worked in the WG have also been
implemented/adapted below IP and there is a long history of that. Of course
there are hundreds of references.  In some cases they started out below IP
as in the OLSR case.  IP centric seems to imply something, but the
addresses,etc don't have to be IP addresses.

-Joe

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christophe Jelger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:13 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [manet] Non IP-based MANETs
>
>Hello all,
>
>I'm looking for references of MANET protocols that are not 
>based on IP like for example non-IP based routing protocols 
>(e.g. LUNAR) or anything that is not "IP-centric".
>
>If someone knows some good references I'd grateful if you 
>could please let me know about them. Note that I do not refer 
>to sensornets or DTN but strictly to MANET papers.
>
>thanks in advance,
>Christophe
>
>--

---

From: Christophe Jelger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:47:45 +0100

Joe,

Thanks for your email: yes the first versions of "old" protocols were 
closer to bridging than routing. Do you know what was the main 
motivation to do routing instead of bridging? Of course with the 
creation of the MANET WG people wanted to go for IP routing and get 
their RFC ;-) but are there key technical reasons for this move? Is it 
(simply) to federate different link layers?

I mean running e.g. OLSR with IPv4, IPv6, or EUI-48 does not change the 
protocol, only the "communication model". Which often implies a lot of 
changes for applications or nodes using the MANET.

BR,
Christophe

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:21:25 -0800

Cristophe,

Recall that bridged ethernets could easily get overdone.  If you added
in alternate routes (for high availability reasons, perhaps), you added
loops.  And ethernet bridges didn't know what to do with them other than
forward them .... forever.  IEEE 802 put spanning tree in .1 to break
the loops.  

MANET protocols are trying to keep track of all their potentially useful
routes -- which means that if the physical structure has any richness at
all, there will be loops.  IP accommodates loops (e.g. TTL in the
header).  

Your speculation that solutions at layer three allow lower layer
heterogeneity is, IMHO, correct also.  

-- 
b