Subject: Re: [manet] Resolving the Reactive Protocol issue

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 19:18:30 -0000

Thanks Sue and Happy New Year,

[snip]

> Additional questions: 
> 1) Will you suggest a style guide as well as a solution?  In order to
> vote, I reviewed 2 months of email list discussion, and 
> much of it had to do with document style issues. 

You didn't vote, but I know what you mean :-)

If "the AD chooses" is the way we go, then I expect the chairs will have a long
discussion with the editors of the document that the WG is working on, and IO
also expect that the WG will express a view about the way they want their
document presented. I will be happy to help in these discussions.

> 2) In parallel with your query, can I still ask technical questions regarding
> people’s comparison answer? 

I don't see why not. The intention (if we don't strike the item from the
charter) will be to produce one or two WG documents. Discussion seems like a
good idea.

> 3) May I in parallel provide reactive trade-off from 802.11 work in
> mesh? This includes research and deployment experience with mesh
> networks (2-15 nodes).

I believe that we can learn from the use of reactive protocols in 802.11 (but
see the answer to Q4). 

> 4) Is this IP only or are we considering Reactive protocols directly
> over layer 2? 

You catch me in a cleft stick! I have an old-fashioned view of the IETF: I
believe it works on IP-related protocols. Thus, if we were proposing to develop
a reactive protocol for L2 use I would say it was out of scope. On the other
hand, if we have already developed a protocol for routing IP traffic and there
is a proposal to apply this protocol in L2 then I would think the IETF could
work on it.

Perhaps the lever here is that in the IETF we optimize for IP.

[Editor's note: MPLS is not IP :-) On the other hand, the MPLS control protocols
are carried by IP.]

Maybe that helps?
Adrian

---

From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 10:31:17 +0000

On Jan 4, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

>> people's comparison answer? 
> 

JP> Glad to hear that … L2 control planes are different from IP, to say the least … IETF == IP.

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

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:32:47 +0100

> [Editor's note: MPLS is not IP :-) On the other hand, the MPLS control protocols

I think MPLS can be a good solution to "solve" a routing problem on 
layer 3 and then duplicate the results on layer 2 (or 2.5).

Henning Rogge

-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de