Subject: Re: MANET application scenarioes

From: Li Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:28:38 -0500 (EST)

Hi Nitin,

I like the way you rephrase the question. As you pointed out (which is 
also my concern), there are not many convincing "civilian" applications 
for MANET of "fast moving" nodes. Most applications for MANET of 
"slow/occasionally moving" nodes may not need the protocols currently 
developed by MANET, trivial extension of traditional wired routing 
protocols may work very well. 

I am trying to stimulate discussions on possible convincing 
"civilian" applications for "fast/often" moving" nodes so that we could 
make a strong case for MANET and fend off criticisms about ad-hoc 
routing.

Li     

On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Nitin H Vaidya wrote:

>   >> I am sure we can think of more applications with a little time.
> 
> That should be good enough for another start-up -:)
> 
> It might be useful to rephrase the question this thread
> is trying to answer, and split into two parts:
> 
> 1. What are applications of MANETs of "fast/often moving" nodes?
> 
> 2. What are applications of MANETs of "slow/ocassionally moving" nodes?
> 
> The second type of MANETs - with slow moving nodes - will
> see plenty of "civilian"
> applications (in absence of war, disaster, and despite
> presence of other infrastructure). Home networking, for instance.
> Even if you have a base station covering your home, ad hoc networks
> can let you extend the "range" of the infrastructure.
> Alternatively, ad hoc network can serve as a "backup" when
> the base station in your home fails, or cannot communicate
> with some nodes (due to some local/temporary interference).
> Besides, with ad hoc networking, you do not need to have
> a base station at all, which may make them preferable
> for some home networks. Nodes in a home are not likely
> to move terribly fast (except perhaps during
> an ad break), so topology changes are not likely to be
> too frequent.
> 
> MANETs of fast moving nodes seem to have much fewer
> civilian applications as yet, although the research issues here
> are more interesting, hence the flurry of research.
> I have not heard many convincing "civilian" applications
> of MANETs of fast moving nodes. (Yes, I have thought of
> ad hoc network of New York cabbies.)
> I am sure eventually someone will come up with a killer
> app for such MANETs too.
> 
> Cheerio.
> 
> - nitin
>

---

From: Nitin H Vaidya <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 21:04:54 -0600 (CST)

Cheerio.

- nitin

---

From: Carlo Kopp <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:40:56 +1000

> make a strong case for MANET and fend off criticisms about ad-hoc 
Li,

A light aircraft using ad hoc protocols will be moving at a minimal speed of
about 70 knots and more typically between 100 and 200 knots. That is an 
immediate application for the distribution eg of weather data, approach
charts, safety advisories, local are and terminal traffic status information
and GPS and DGPS position information and updates.

This application has the immediate property of "continuous/fast motion" while
airborne. Also I am sure that you could sell it right now if you had
a working system !

This is an immediate application which has the required properties, and
is commercially viable. 

A similar case can be made for many maritime uses, such as mutual support
by fishing fleet vessels etc.

I am happy to debate this with anybody who chooses to dispute it !

Cheers,

Carlo

---

From: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:37:39 -0500

>an ad break), so topology changes are not likely to be

Nitin:

Additional 2 cents.

Some interesting observations.  I would add that even in some slow moving
networks ... topologies may be more dynamic that motion would indicate
(e.g., power cycling, urban multipath).  Meshed rooftops could be similar.
Just an additional thought for consideration.  

Dynamics are motion/range relative and I think low power, inexpensive
micronets could be another interesting area.  Small range, low power
provides an interesting perspective from the typical macro mobility vision
we like to talk about.  (Batteries don't follow Moore's law) so there is
operational incentive to go here for some applications.  So I am not sure
things have to move fast (on macro level) for topologies to be moderately
dynamic.

I could see this being a big issue for power-conserving robotics
applications, home networking, wearable computing, etc.

-Joe

---

From: Santithorn Bunchua <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:06:21 -0500 (EST)

Hi,

> protocols may work very well. 

Sometimes, even for the slow-moving nodes, there is a need for low-power,
low-overhead protocol since mobile devices/computers have limited power.
Also, we don't want connection to be disrupted (e.g. paused waiting for
route to converge) for too long when route breaks. For these reasons,
it is still more efficient to use MANET protocols.

In the near future, I believe many transmitters will be short-range and
thus require ad hoc networking to be more useful in extending its
communication range to other devices or fixed-network base stations.

=keh=