Subject: [Roll] review/comments on overview-protocols

From: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 11:30:26 +0530

Here are some comments I have from reviewing the overview-protocols  
document.

I think you should consider including proactive/reactive in the  
routing protocol taxonomy.

You may also want to discuss distribution of a default route.

On page 6 you bring up neighbor discovery. I would recommend you  
change the terminology to avoid the term "neighbor discovery (ND)".  
ND has very specific connotations within the IETF. I might recommend  
adjacent/neighboring router discovery. You might also want to mention  
asymmetric reachability (see ND RFC), since this behavior will be  
common in ROLL networks.

RIPng and DYMO use distance as a metric.

AODV use several things (in addition to hop count) when making  
routing decisions. My paper discusses it === Ian D. Chakeres and  
Elizabeth M. Belding-Royer. "Transparent Influence of Path Selection  
in Heterogeneous Ad hoc Networks." Proceedings of the 15th IEEE  
International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio  
Communications (PIMRC), Barcelona, Spain, September 2004. === Several  
of these observations/features are also available for DYMO.

Using the methods above (delay, distance, etc.) both AODV and DYMO  
can incorporate node metrics (e.g. remaining energy) during route  
discovery. This behavior may influence Section 5.2.

In Section 5.3 you mention GPSR, please include a reference.

In Section 5.4 you state that AODV headers are 24 bytes. This seems  
to be stated to indicate that protocols are not being built to  
support small MTU links, but I would argue that 24-bytes is a small  
packet in comparison to many other routing protocols.

In Section 5.4, you might want to mention 6lowpan is one instance for  
handling IEEE 802.15.4 network small MTU problems.

In Section 5.5 you discuss sleepy nodes. I see sleepy and low power  
as related but distinctly different problems. Perhaps you can make  
sleepy a subsection of low power.

In Section 5.7 (MTR) - I have been discussing mechanism to enable MTR  
in all the MANET protocols. The draft is draft-chakeres-manet- 
manetid. It has been discussed on list and we plan to include it in  
DYMO.

I'd like to say a few words about DYMO. DYMO has lots of optional  
behavior and only the most fundamental behaviors are required. For  
example, path accumulation is optional. Even processing/forwarding a  
RREQ is optional. Expanding ring search is optional. Interactions  
with relay sets are optional. Although not described - precursor  
lists could be implemented and they could be used to control RERR  
propagation. These optional behaviors allow an intelligent  
implementation to perform well in a larger number of scenarios, while  
still interoperating with less intelligent implementations.

I understand that because only some basic mechanisms are required and  
other mechanisms are optional, it will make it more difficult to  
classify DYMO's performance.

The discussion of DSR in the appendix seems quite short when compared  
to the other protocols, it should probably be expanded. I would  
suggest you contact the authors for assistance.

I hope you can use this information to improve the document.
Ian

One more thing - Here is a comment related to the current on-list  
discussion about which protocols to include in the analysis - should  
mobile IP and other tunneling protocols be included? I say no, but  
many (e.g. MANEMO) people may say yes.

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