Subject: [manet] Re: [Autoconf] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-chakeres-manet-iana-00.txt (Ian Chakeres)

From: "Sholander, Peter E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:12:54 -0600

Dear All,

I didn't see any reference to NRL's previous work on the Internet MANET
Encapsulation Protocol (IMEP).  That vintage (1997?) MANET I-D was
intended to deal with the problem that "the main contributor to
congestion is channel access (not bits)."

Has that IMEP work been discussed again and discarded recently?  Or just
"lost in the mists" at this point.

--Pete Sholander
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800, M/S 0672
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-0672

v: 505-844-0646
e: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:21 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: manet Digest, Vol 27, Issue 15

Send manet mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of manet digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: [Autoconf] Fwd: I-D
      ACTION:draft-chakeres-manet-iana-00.txt (Ian Chakeres)
   2. Re: Re: [Autoconf] Fwd: I-D
      ACTION:draft-chakeres-manet-iana-00.txt (Francisco J. Ros)
   3. Re: [Autoconf] Fwd: I-D
      ACTION:draft-chakeres-manet-iana-00.txt
([email-masked])
   4. Re: [Autoconf] Fwd: I-D
      ACTION:draft-chakeres-manet-iana-00.txt (Thomas Clausen)
   5. Re: [Autoconf] Fwd: I-D
      ACTION:draft-chakeres-manet-iana-00.txt (Christophe Jelger)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:05:46 -0700
From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [manet] Re: [Autoconf] Fwd: I-D
	ACTION:draft-chakeres-manet-iana-00.txt
To: "Christophe Jelger" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], manet <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:
	<[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Given that these protocols are going to run over wireless interfaces
(like IEEE 802.11), the main contributor to congestion is channel access
(not bits). Therefore; if each protocol uses a separate packet it can
result in a significant increase in channel access.

Let me give a simple example. OLSR will use NHDP, it will also add
certain TLVs to NHDP for determining MPRs. OLSR will also send other
messages. It does not really make sense to separate the two onto
different multicast addresses or ports.

Continuing to add to this example, imagine that a portion of the network
is also running DYMO and NHDP. If separate multicast groups were used
these messages would consume even more channel access opportunities.

One more continuation, it is likely that either reactive or proactive
may use SMF with NHDP. Again, if a separate link-local address is used
then these messages cannot be aggregated.

Realistically, if a certian deployment (provider) requires each part of
the solution to use a different multicast group this could be
implemented, but I think the default (interoperable behavior) should be
to use a single multicast address to reduce channel access.

Christophe, do you think we should define one default multicast address
and one for each component?

Ian Chakeres

<etc.>

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