Subject: Re: [seamoby] updated problem statement

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:13:31 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Phil,

The problem statement looks good, I've got just one comment. There
seems to be an implicit assumption in the statement that the routing
protocol which IRTF will come up with will be based on a standard
wired subnet routing model. I think this assumption is somewhat limiting.
Remember, we are talking about research. The model might end up
being something between the completely ad hoc MANET model and
the standard subnet model.

So, I'd suggest changing "subnet" to "network" or some other neutral
term.

		jak

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:22:57 -0700 (PDT)

So I'm sort of ignorant of MANET protocols, but
subnets are just ways of moving the reachability
of aggregates of connectivity around. From my skim
of TORA, it didn't look like it was doing anything
mysterious on that from; it was mainly working on
the way the change was propogated from what I
could tell (link reversal).

		Mike

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:30:39 -0500

Mike,

Route aggragation is a "REAL PROBLEM" for MANETs.  Most
of the algorithms full in one of two camps, either Link state routing
(LSR) [more-OSPF like] or distance vector (DV) more BGP or
RIP like.  The algorithms for MANET are in general a distributed
version of the Dykstra shortest path first (SPF) algorithm or the
Bellman Ford algorithm.  [I just finished Charlie's book!].

In the case of what Dana has suggested to the IRTF a "route
propogation" solution was suggested namely source routes.  You
would expect a recommendation like this from a router company!!!
:-)  :-)  NO FLAMES please.

The point of my argument was that the MN's themselves may be
participating in the creation of temporary tunnel and some may the
first hop ARs AND that a route propogation algorithm may NOT
be able to keep up with this.

Thanks,

Phil Neumiller