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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:43:23 -0600

Hi Charlie,

I do need to take a Dale Carnegie course pretty soon!  I apologize for
the language used in that mail.   However, unfortunately, my sentiment
was accurately stated.  I have talked to MANY other folks about this
and they too seem to concur.  I guess I was dumb enough to state this in
a public forum.  The MANET community should know that many
pragmatists in the (lets get this thing running yesterday) mobillity
community feel there has been a bit too much focus on "esoteric" routing
protocols in the MANET WG.   Many I have talked to, stated that they
would prefer a simple IP based discovery and few hop routing protocol
to be availabel from the IETF.   This may not be possible, but IMHO it
is possible  (I know put up or shut up, write a draft, etc).   This should be a
far less challenging problem than say getting the AODV work optimized.
When I suggested this to the MANET community I did not seem to get
much interest raised about a year ago hence I did not write a draft.

Regarding posts to the MANET group.  I believe if you dig deep into
the archives you will see that I did indeed post several times to the group
about Bluetooth and its method for ad hoc networking.  See the
following archive pointers where you and I discussed this very issue.

http://www.cs.hut.fi/~mart/mail/manet/2000/0196.html
http://www.cs.hut.fi/~mart/mail/manet/2000/0194.html

The quote that I posted to MANET in January of 2000 over a year ago states:

    "It seems to me that what we want to do is have manet-like capabilities
specified
     at the IP layer so that we can change out radios as needed. With this in
mind,
     can somebody write a draft that puts these really basic Bluetooth
capabilities
     like cable replacement, ad hoc networking, over manet so that we eventually
 have
     an RFC standard for the really basic stuff?"

Sent by:  "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>

<stuff deleted>

Charles E. Perkins writes:
I don't remember any
message from you on the [manet] mailing list to suggest improvements,
either

<stuff deleted>

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.

pdn>I don't think there is anything wrong with it.  It may simply
pdn>be overkill for today's consumer.  I am looking at building
pdn>wireless consumer products in the $15 to $65 price range and
pdn>believe me every bit of RAM costs.

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?

pdn>Peer-to-peer is the answer (I happen to be a BIG advocate of
pdn>contract nets). :-)

will happen a lot sooner with people who are willing to make
the effort to harmonize instead of issuing blanket condemnations.

pdn>The condemnation is not on the work but the priority inversion of simple
pdn>solutions versus analysis paralysis.

Sorry for any broken feathers,  thanks,

Phil

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:54:35 -0800

Hello Phil,

Let me try again to address your actual concern.  I'm not too concerned
about the language you used to express it, although it does matter to a
certain extent.

> a public forum.

Stating exactly that is not dumb, and such things should be stated in
public more often so that things can be resolved.

>                  The MANET community should know that many
> to be availabel from the IETF.

Well, it is.  Any [manet] protocol can do a few hops.  Just pick one.
Of course I'd prefer that you pick AODV, but performance over a
small neighborhood won't differ enough to argue about.

Regarding Service Discovery, it's simple enough using various
methods.  I'd suggest SLP, but then again you may think I am
biased.

>                               This may not be possible, but IMHO it

I think a lot of people in [manet] would say there's not much left to do.
Part of the problem (I'm guessing) is that the IETF doesn't build systems.
If no protocol development is needed, then IETF doesn't do all that much
for you.  Perhaps the scenario you want already has enough protocol
available for the job.  If not, from what you said I reckon we could do
the rest on the back of an envelope.  If you want to do this, let's sit down
in Minneapolis and draft something for consideration.

> http://www.cs.hut.fi/~mart/mail/manet/2000/0194.html

O.K.  I just didn't remember, but thanks.

> pdn>believe me every bit of RAM costs.

I'm having a hard time believing that AODV vs. anything else would
be the cost determinant.  I know that RAM counts, but so does
reliability etc.

> pdn>Peer-to-peer is the answer (I happen to be a BIG advocate of

Peer-to-peer is the answer as long as the endpoints can identify and
communicate with each other.  Sometimes servers are useful, too.

> Sorry for any broken feathers,  thanks,

Well, the point is to get past unneeded biases to see what there is
and what needs to be done.

Regards,
Charlie P.