Subject: Re: [seamoby] Upcoming REAL IP for Bluetooth BOF

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 08:38:47 -0800

Hello Phil,

.....

> 1).  REAL SIMPLE ad hoc networking capabilities, i.e. limited it to a few
>      hops so you don't have to worry about the scalability of flooding
>      algorithms, etc.  The MANET group has been focused on esoteric
>      routing algorithm optimization and is in gridlock.  We need simple
>      IP based ad hoc networking.  This is an area that Bluetooth can
>      take a leadership role for future local wireless technologies.

   .... other points deleted ....

It's fine if Bluetooth can take a leadership role, but it's not
fine to maintain that [manet] is in gridlock.  Indeed, there has been
concrete progress reported at every IETF.  As an engineer involved
with one of the protocols (AODV), and with my own certainty that it
is applicable to Bluetooth, I need to at least point out that your
opinion, Phil, is not universally shared.  I don't remember any
message from you on the [manet] mailing list to suggest improvements,
either, so slurs on other mailing lists seem at least inappropriate.

Furthermore, regarding "esoteric"...

Scalability is good.  You are right that limiting networks to a
few hops makes life simpler in the short run, but then you have
the problem that sooner rather than later your whole technology
will run out of steam.  Then you have the field upgrade problem
sooner rather than later.  This is all a matter of economics, of
course.  But the cost for scalability is very much worthwhile
if little or no additional complication is involved.

I wish you would be more specific about what you think is wrong,
at least with AODV.

What is needed more than anything now is some new ideas about
application interfaces in an ad-hoc network.  Now that we have
routing protocols, how do we fix the largely broken client-server
paradigm which doesn't hold up so well in the ad-hoc world?
Even DNS is hard (actually, it's especially hard).  I believe
that [zeroconf] has some applicable idea on this.  There should
be more cross-pollination between [manet] and [zeroconf].  It
will happen a lot sooner with people who are willing to make
the effort to harmonize instead of issuing blanket condemnations.

Regards,
Charlie P.