Subject: [manet] Hybrid routing protocols (was RE: [Ans-research] The Charter)

From: "Pete Sholander" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:13:52 -0400

To briefly summarize my "Fall Flame-fest" on this topic, IMHO ...

a) the case where every MANET node can exhibit hybrid behavior is
probably an IRTF topic.

b) the case where a pre-selected set of nodes can speak a proactive
protocol out of one logical interface and a reactive protocol out of a
different logical interface *might* be an IETF topic.  This case would
cover a stub AODV MANET interfacing to an OSPF core.  (The
commercial/educational case.)  It would also address military
applications wherein a ground-based maneuver network (using proactive
techniques?) interfaces with a UAV cloud or sensor network (that use
reactive techniques because of mobility rates and/or energy concerns?).

c) Work on items (a) or (b) must NOT impede the IETF's drive towards
solid Standards for basic Reactive Protocols and basic Proactive
Protocols.  (I'll sidestep whether there's one of each, or two!)      

On a related note, my org did open-air tests of our ZRP variant during
March (20 nodes including man-pack, vehicle mount and a Cessna in
"realistic terrain".)   Maybe I can feed some summarized results into
the IRTF process later this year.  (The basic result was that additional
cross-layer optimizations are definitely needed for practical MANETs.)

--Pete Sholander

>>> "Dearlove, Chris" <[email-masked]> 04/10/03 08:29AM
>>>

(Note: the ">text" is from Charlie Perkins' posts.)

> I think that going for two documents is the most expedient
> way forward, because the technologies, considered separately,
> are on the way to being fairly well understood.

I can certainly see the logic here. As background I asked the
question at the meeting largely as a request for information,
although I did comment that I could see attractions in a hybrid
protocol in scenarios of interest to us. (I presume everyone else 
can too, so won't give any details here.)

> The idea of a combined proactive/reactive (or, perhaps, "hybrid")
> scheme is in my opinion much less well-understood.  So, it would
> take a lot longer to get the combined scheme, and in the meantime
> we would benefit from the existence of some Proposed Standards for
> the two well-understood technologies.  After we get to that point,
> I think we would be much better prepared to judge our chances for
> success on combining the technologies.

> However, I hope we also make space in the charter for:

> - Internet connectivity
> - Efficient broadcast/multicast

> These are obviously needed, and techniques are known
> for accomplishing them.

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