Subject: RE: [manet] Comments on draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-08

From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:40:34 +0100

From: Bo Berry [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>From a routing perspective, it could be beneficial to run
>the MANET protocol directly over IP.  This would require
>the allocation of an IP Protocol Type and definition
>of supporting headers.

IP protocol types are rather precious, there are only 256
of them, a lot already taken. I know DSR got one, but DSR
has a rather complicated interaction with IP, and the
authors successfully argued that they needed one. Is it
important enough to do so here?

Of course as far as packetbb is concerned, fine. I believe
we intend to remove the one reference to UDP in packetbb
on the grounds that there is no reason, in packetbb, to
favour UDP. (In protocols using packetbb, that's a different
issue.)

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************

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

---

From: Bo Berry <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:17:41 -0400

> important enough to do so here?

I think there is value defining the MANET protocol at the IP
layer and adjusting packetbb to account for it.  For example,
the 6loWPAN draft made several simplification changes to
support fixed packets and run at the link layer.  Perhaps
adjustments for a MANET protocol at the IP layer could bring
a common solution for the two WGs, specifically since the
two WGs need to consider similar problems.

Packet Building Block and DYMO Applicability for 6LoWPAN
draft-oh-6lowpan-packetbb-dymoapp-01
 ""This can be achieved by applying existing routing protocols or
   designing new ones, if necessary.  A number of experimental protocols
   have been developed in the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANET) working
   group, such as AODV [RFC3561], OLSR [RFC3626], or DYMO
   [I-D.ietf-manet-dymo].  These protocols, however, are designed to use
   IP-based addresses and impose large overhead on LoWPAN devices.
   LoWPAN devices are characterized by short range, low bit rate, low
   power and low cost [ieee802.15.4], and it is required that the
   routing packets fit within a single IEEE 802.15.4 frame to reduce
   packet overhead and energy consumption.  Thus, simplification of
   routing packets and operations must be done in order to reuse the
   existing solutions in below IP layer.""

---

From: "Dominik Kaspar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:05:58 +0900

Hello,

Speaking on behalf of the draft "Packet Building Block and DYMO
Applicability for 6LoWPAN" (draft-oh-6lowpan-packetbb-dymoapp-01), I
agree that there is no reason for packetbb to favor UDP (or any
transport protocol) for the diffusion mechanism.

And I'm not sure how widespread the usage of DSR is... but I certainly
see that MANET could also justify its importance in the routing area,
in order to obtain an IANA Protocol Number.

Dominik