Subject: Routing Zone Framework

From: Marc Pearlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:16:58 -0500 (EST)

Hi everyone,

We would like your input about how we should continue developing
zone routing in this working group: 

	- As a specific protocol (i.e. Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)) 

			OR 

	- As a more general underlying framework/service.

The intent of zone routing is to demonstrate how a hybrid
proactive/reactive protocol can operate more efficiently than either a
proactive or reactive routing protocol alone. Given knowledge of the local
network topology, reactive route querying can be performed more
efficiently (in our case, through a "bordercasting" service and effective
query control mechanisms, which help to steer the query outwards).  In
most cases, the improvement in querying outweighs the added cost of
proactively tracking the local topology.  

This basic philosophy is shared by other hybrid schemes (for
example, multipoint relaying).  The different hybrid schemes are
distinguished by the mechanisms used to leverage the local topology
information on behalf of a more efficient global search/delivery service.

Currently, our ZRP working draft specifies a soure routing reactive
component [IERP] and (localized) distance vector proactive component
[IARP].  These particular IERP / IARP components are intended only as 
vehicles to provide a complete protocol specification.  They should not be
considered as defining features of zone routing.  For example, an
alternate zone routing protocol (ZRP) could be specified with a localized
link-state proactive component, and "AODV" as the reactive component.

>From this perspective, it would seem favorable for zone routing to be
formulated as a general framework.  However, a zone routing framework
would only be of practical value if the protocols under consideration were
able to be integrated within such a framework.

We are interested in the opinions of ALL group members:

    * Do you feel that zone routing is broad enough to serve as an
      underlying framework/service, or is it best left as a stand-alone
      hybrid protocol (currently, it's a stand-alone protocol)?  Why?

If you have a routing protocol under consideration by the MANET WG,
responses to the following questions would be of particular interest: 

	* Do you think that your protocol could be adapted to a zone
	  routing framework?
		- If your protocol is reactive, this would mean replacing
		  "broadcasting" with "bordercasting".
		- If your protocol is proactive, this would mean limiting
		  the extent of your route/link updates to a specified
		   number of hops.

	* Do you think that your protocol would be improved or hindered in
	  a zone routing framework?  Why?

We appreciate your time and look forward to hearing your thoughts on this
matter.

				thanks,

				Marc

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Marc Pearlman	                  	tel: +1-607-255-0236
Wireless Networks Laboratory	
389 Frank Rhodes Hall             	fax: +1-607-255-9072
School of Electrical Engineering
Cornell University                	e-mail: [email-masked]
Ithaca, N.Y. 14853                	
U.S.A.					http://www.ee.cornell.edu/~pearlman
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-