Subject: [manet] New Mailing List: Routing for Sensor Network

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:49:21 -0400

Hi,

We wanted to inform you that a new Mailing List has been set up, the  
aim of which is to discuss Routing for Sensor Networks (at the IP  
layer). Anybody interested in contributing to the work is of course  
more than welcome to subscribe and collaborate. To register: https:// 
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn

Several of you already expressed some real interest in this work and  
several documents (with currently no home WG) already exist. David  
and I posted are about to post an ID on the routing requirements for  
Sensor Networks (probably early next week) to kick off the discussion.

What is the overall objective ?
1) As you know a plethora of proprietary routing protocols (thus  
outside of the IETF) have been developed and there is within the IETF  
currently no clear answer on which protocol(s) can satisfy the very  
specific requirements of Sensor Networks. This triggered this  
initiative so as to define a routing architecture and routing  
protocol at the IETF for Sensor Nets, thus this new mailing list.  
Note that we may not be able to come up with a single set of  
requirements but a few requirement documents accompanied with some  
applicability IDs if it turns out that a unique solution cannot  
satisfy them all.
2) There is at this stage no a priori on the routing protocol that  
could be used: it could either be (1) existing routing protocol(s)  
(AODV, DYMO, OLSR, Triggered RIP, NEMO, ...) (1) existing routing  
protocol(s) with enhancements or (3) new routing protocol(s).

Possible next steps
If enough interest for this work is shown on the list, we will  
request a BOF for Chicago, which may lead to forming a new WG.

JP and David.

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

---

From: "Dominik Kaspar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:58:24 +0900

JP, David,

I would like to refer to our 6lowpan Routing Requirements draft, which
discusses the issues of routing in "sensor networks". The draft
provides design goals and a list of requirements for IP-based routing
solutions in low-rate WPANs.

At IETF-68 in Prague, we presented our work and solicited advice from
both MANET and 6lowpan folks. There seemed to be a general consent
that routing is a very important task to solve, however, it is heavily
dependent on the network architecture itself, and what exactly this
"architecture" is should be clarified first.

If you haven't done it yet, please read our draft; we appreciate any
constructive comments:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/draft-dokaspar-6lowpan-routreq-01.txt

Sincerely,
Dominik

On 4/12/07, JP Vasseur <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We wanted to inform you that a new Mailing List has been set up, the aim of
> which is to discuss Routing for Sensor Networks (at the IP layer). Anybody
> interested in contributing to the work is of course more than welcome to
> subscribe and collaborate. To register:
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
>
> Several of you already expressed some real interest in this work and several
> documents (with currently no home WG) already exist. David and I posted are
> about to post an ID on the routing requirements for Sensor Networks
> (probably early next week) to kick off the discussion.
>
> 1) As you know a plethora of proprietary routing protocols (thus outside of
> the IETF) have been developed and there is within the IETF currently no
> clear answer on which protocol(s) can satisfy the very specific requirements
> of Sensor Networks. This triggered this initiative so as to define a routing
> architecture and routing protocol at the IETF for Sensor Nets, thus this new
> mailing list. Note that we may not be able to come up with a single set of
> applicability IDs if it turns out that a unique solution cannot satisfy them
> all.
> 2) There is at this stage no a priori on the routing protocol that could be
> used: it could either be (1) existing routing protocol(s) (AODV, DYMO, OLSR,
> Triggered RIP, NEMO, ...) (1) existing routing protocol(s) with enhancements
> or (3) new routing protocol(s).
>
> Possible next steps
> If enough interest for this work is shown on the list, we will request a BOF
> for Chicago, which may lead to forming a new WG.
>
> JP and David.
>