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

From: "Dearlove, Chris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:29:57 +0100

> 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.

Such limited thought as I've given to the subject are (not unlike ZRP)
basically proactive islands in a reactive sea (logically, not
necessarily physically). However I was thinking more in terms of nodes
choosing whether to act proactively, and the proactive islands thus
forming in an ad hoc manner. The intent would be for the basic unit
of the reactive protocol then not being the node but the proactive
network. If no one acts proactively it is then just a reactive network;
if everyone acts proactively it is then just a proactive network.
(Actually more than two behaviours are possible, but that's a later
detail.)

I'm sure others have already had this idea and taken it further -
hopefully to the point where the problems I can already see, such as
how proactive groups aren't exactly like nodes, and others I haven't
yet seen, have been solved or found to be showstoppers. I'd appreciate
any pointers to literature on the subject, in particular actual attempts
along these lines.

The only way I could see this, or another hybrid, approach being
compatible with the manet group would be if the new manet protocols
were built in blocks (as was suggested by more than one person).
Like ZRP there would then be multiple protocols: a proactive
protocol, but with "hooks" to handle reactive messages, a reactive
protocol, but capable of handling groups of nodes as a unit, and a
how to put them together protocol. However a key point would be that
you could opt into a single mode and only use one of the first two
protocols. Perhaps it would be sufficient to develop separate protocols,
as you are suggesting, with enough flexibility provided in each to
allow a combining protocol to be built later, extending the two base
protocols.

Apologies for what comes next, it's out of my control, but everyone
is privileged.

********************************************************************
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