Subject: Re: [manet] MANET management use cases

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:27:03 +0200

Hi Ulrich,

I thank you for this, I am happy that IESG have requested this. Mr.
Cole in the meeting 82 had introduced the problem (please check his
presentation), which I presented to the MANET. Yes we need in MANET to
be focus on use-case, and how management is done. It is important that
MANET documents interact with Internet drafts.

 I included Mr.Cole presentation (Nov.2011) in my I-D draft about
MANET subnet technologies, and propose that any new I-D for management
should take it into consideration.

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Hi,
>
> we got a request (read: "DISCUSS") from Benoit Claise during NHDP-MIB
> IESG evaluation to specify use cases how MANETs are monitored and
> managed using SNMP. After discussion with Benoit and Adrian, we agreed
> that such information would be useful, but that the MIB module (as
> pure APIs) would likely be the wrong place. Moreover, the use cases
> would not necessarily be specific to the NHDP-MIB, but concern all MIB
> modules. Benoit requested that we come up with a new informational
> draft in the WG, which discusses different MANET management use cases.
>
> Bob started working on collecting management and monitoring scenarios
> from the military experience. I believe that it would also be
> interesting to cover other use cases, such as in disaster recovery
> (e.g., monitoring and management of routers thrown out of an airplane
> over a disaster area) or in community networks (e.g.,
> FreiFunk/FunkFeuer networks in Europe). Investigating these examples
> can help to come up with a more abstract model of different management
> and monitoring approaches. It would be helpful if participants in this
> WG with MANET deployment and management/monitoring experience could
> contribute to such an effort.
>
> As a side note, there is a new mailing list about management of
> constrained networks and devices (coma at ietf.org), which may be of
> interest for some of the WG participants.
>
> Best regards
> Ulrich
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:47:15 +0200

Hi Ulrich,

I got a question I heard before on the list by one participant that
MANET routing does not mandatory need MIB for each protocol. Is this
true? I had a feeling that there is many type of managements when we
consider ad hoc networks which are self-managed somehow,

thanking you

AB

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:51:51 +0200

> consider ad hoc networks which are self-managed somehow,

MIBs specify a very different "kind" of management, than what is meant by those describing an ad hoc network as "self-managed".

Thomas

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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:53:07 +0200

>>Investigating examples can help to come up with a more abstract model of different management and monitoring approaches.

Please note that the presenter of [Radio, SatCom, and considerations]
in 82 meeting stated that it is not possible to define a manange model
before defining layer 2 subnet model, which I agreed from before [1]
and worked on the draft of MANET L2 subnets starting on 8 June [2].

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12961.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13032.html

AB
======

> University of Glamorgan, UK
To: manet at ietf.org
Subject: [manet] MANET management use cases
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich at herberg.name>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:43:12 -0700

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:29:02 -0700

There was no WG consensus to work on subnet models back at IETF82 (or anytime after that). 

Ulrich

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:20:05 +0200

Hi Ulrich,

There was no sound objection either (please check it again), which I
understood, furthermore, there was no call for consensus. Please note
that the reasons of defining were clear, but the reasons for not
defining were not clear.

 The IETF82 MANET WG did not convince Mr. Cole, and discussion is
still open the list because the meeting was short and the chair was
trying to close the discussion because limited time. However, I see
now that Mr.Benoit input agreed with Mr.Cole somehow that management
issues needs such MANET definitions.

AB
=========

On 7/13/12, Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> Investigating examples can help to come up with a more abstract model of
>>>> different management and monitoring approaches.
>>

---

From: "Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:03:15 +0000

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Abdussalam,

In your reference, I was specifically referring to the development of a
management model for a radio subnet, which would be instantiated in, e.g., a
MIB module.  However, I believe that we can have meaningful discussions
about the use cases for management of MANET technologies, without such a
model of a radio.

Thanks,
Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:53 PM
To: manet
Subject: Re: [manet] MANET management use cases

Please note that the presenter of [Radio, SatCom, and considerations] in 82
meeting stated that it is not possible to define a manange model before
defining layer 2 subnet model, which I agreed from before [1] and worked on
the draft of MANET L2 subnets starting on 8 June [2].

AB
======

To: manet at ietf.org
>> managed using SNMP. After discussion with Benoit and Adrian, we 
>> agreed that such information would be useful, but that the MIB module 
>> (as pure APIs) would likely be the wrong place. Moreover, the use 
>> cases would not necessarily be specific to the NHDP-MIB, but concern 
>> all MIB modules. Benoit requested that we come up with a new 
>> informational draft in the WG, which discusses different MANET management
use cases.
>> can help to come up with a more abstract model of different 
>> management and monitoring approaches. It would be helpful if 
>> participants in this WG with MANET deployment and 
>> management/monitoring experience could contribute to such an effort.
>>

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:43:44 +0200

> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Hi Bob,

I thank you for your reply and comment, I tried to reach you to know
your opinion on this matter before, however, I taken the work to
follow your opinion as your input in Nov. 2011 was that you wanted the
layer 2 defined. Now your reply may want only the MANET use-case. I
recommended the use case defined from 8 June [1], and I changed from
defining L2 to considering the requirements [2], because of
participants feedback.

IMHO after I checked the WG feedback I noticed that consensus wanted
defining L2 out of the MANET WG, therefore I directed my work to
combined both matters use-case [1] and L2 considerations, without
defining directly [2] (even my draft title changed), so that the
purpose is informational for both designers and users.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13022.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13049.html

Best Regards,
AB
=======