Subject: [manet] Questions: Subnet Technology and Routing Topology

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 11:24:29 +0200

Hi,

> And one more scenario. Your nodes are all stationary, your propagation is
> stationary. You have no moving obstacles. But things are still
> (sporadically) dynamic when your nodes fail (battery exhaustion, accident,
> enemy action).

So do you mean that the topology dynamics is the key for
distinguishing MANETs? or do you mean having reactive or proactive
protocol is the key?

> Strange wording, in my opinion. It seems to me that if the
> network _topology_ is truly static, you do not need a routing
> protocol at all. (Note that just as the absence of movement does
> not imply a static topology, a static topology does not imply
> stationary nodes).

IMHO after above paragraphs, the question is which topology your
looking at not its dynamics/statics, because in ROLL and in MANET
protocols both routing topologies are dynamic, but different methods.
The new version of the draft-00 of MANET subnet technology [AB2] will
distiguish between ROLL-LLNs and MANET-LLNs. MANET depend in their
routing on Logical Topology [AB1] as for some LLNs that are not
related to MANET have routings in the both Physical and Logical
Topology [AB1].

Second issue is some MANET architecture are different from LLN
architecture. LLN uses layer 2 to mesh and its routing maybe
influenced by it could we say the same in MANET. Please comment,

[AB1] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-baryun-manet-terminology-00.txt
[AB2] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-baryun-manet-technology-00.txt

Regards

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In discussions one may be wrong, or may be right, but it does not
matter if we work together as a group to progress and resolve all
issues. IETF WGs are always right.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Subject: Re: [manet] Discussing LOADng suggestions
>From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove at baesystems.com>
>Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:04:04 +0000
>
> If a network is static, but not preconfigured, then you may still want to
> run a proactive routing protocol up to the point where you have established
> the topology, then turn it off. Or if there's a reason not to want to do
> that, you could run a reactive routing protocol, with anything up to
> infinite expiry time on discovered routes.
>
> And one more scenario. Your nodes are all stationary, your propagation is
> stationary. You have no moving obstacles. But things are still
> (sporadically) dynamic when your nodes fail (battery exhaustion, accident,
> enemy action).
>
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> |
> http://www.baesystems.com
>
> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
> Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Ulrich Herberg
> Sent: 31 July 2012 19:26
> To: Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't
> Cc: manet; Abdussalam Baryun
> Subject: Re: [manet] Discussing LOADng suggestions
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
> This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an
> external partner or the internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> Please see this
> process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>
> on how to deal with suspicious emails.
> Ronald,
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't
> <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
>> [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] On Behalf
>>Of Antonin Bas
>>Sent: dinsdag 31 juli 2012 19:44
>>To: Ulrich Herberg
>>Cc: manet; Abdussalam Baryun
>>Subject: Re: [manet] Discussing LOADng suggestions
>>
>>According to MANET charter,
>>
>>The purpose of the MANET working group is to standardize IP routing
>>  protocol functionality suitable for wireless routing application within
>>  both static and dynamic topologies with increased dynamics due to node
>>  motion or other factors.
> Strange wording, in my opinion. It seems to me that if the network
> _topology_ is truly static, you do not need a routing protocol at all.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
> (Note that just as the absence of movement does not imply a static topology,
> a static topology does not imply stationary nodes).
>
>>
>>So I don't think MANETs are defined by mobility, but by "increased
>>dynamics",which can be due to motion, but also to lossy links.
> So why aren't they called ANETs?
>
>
> Or DANET ("dynamic"). It just did not sound as nice when the term was
> created.
>
> Best
> Ulrich
>
>
>
>
> Ronald

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 08:40:34 -0700

> protocols both routing topologies are dynamic, but different methods.

I would disagree.

> related to MANET have routings in the both Physical and Logical

I am not sure this makes any sense.

Henning Rogge

-- 
Steven Hawkings about cosmic inflation: "An increase of billions of
billions of percent in a tiny fraction of a second. Of course, that
was before the present government."

---

From: jpmacker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:08:25 -0400

i would also disagree

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 4, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Henning Rogge <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:36:30 +0100

If there is no *reason* for agree or disagree, then there can't be a
discussion.
I will consider any opinion with no reason as a vote, not a discussion.
Thanking you,

AB
----------------

---

From: jpmacker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:21:21 -0400

-1 disagree

the definition of consensus usually involves "agreement" as the main idea so agree/disagree is a fine means to gain a rough feeling for consensus.

On Aug 17, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If there is no *reason* for agree or disagree, then there can't be a discussion.
> I will consider any opinion with no reason as a vote, not a discussion. Thanking you,
>  
> AB
> ----------------

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:57:16 +0200

> -1 disagree
>
> the definition of consensus usually involves "agreement" as the main idea so
> agree/disagree is a fine means to gain a rough feeling for consensus.
>

 For any IETF WG decisions, we need consensus, and the consensus
involves agree/disagree. For WGs' discussions, a participant argument
position needs known reason, which involves why/why-not.
 IMO, for an ietf-participant progress, he/she needs to know *why*
through discussions/questions, and he/she should make *decisions* for
the WG's I-Ds/RFCs with his/her group through rough consensus.
Decisions are accepted by community only if they are discussed or they
have clear reasons.

AB

---

From: Bo Berry <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:49:28 -0400

AB, Joe

To avoid personal perspectives and unintended bias, suggest we simply 
refer to in rfc2418, IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures.

There is a lot said in rfc2418 about discussions and the WG Chairs
process and discretion to determine consensus.  Pasted two important
ones below

Thanks
-Bo

"...consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list."

"Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process.
  IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although
  this is, of course, preferred.  In general, the dominant view of the
  working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that
  "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
  persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus
  can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on
  which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).  Note that 51%
  of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is
  better than rough.  It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
  consensus has been reached."