Subject: [manet] Discussing LOADng suggestions

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:59:54 +0200

Hi

I think at the WG 83 meeting, regarding LOADng to be discussed, and
that the suggestions were either of the following:

1- to accommodate LOADng for MANET WG,
( some prefered to see LOADng possibly adapted to the MANET working
group as reactive protocol with RFC5444 compliance), or
2- to leave LOADng for LLN group to look at it, other than MANET WG, or
3- to join LOADng authors with DYMO authors in one work.

IMO it is interesting to have a reactive MANET protocol using RFC5444.
There is motivation to use RFC5444 for interoperability between
routers and security purposes. However, LOADng is for lossy ad-hoc
networks more than mobile ad-hoc nets. If authors decide LOADng is for
LLN then they should take it to LLN groups, but if the protocol and
document is modified it can be an alternative MANET reactive protocol
that differs from DYMO. So I agree to option-1 more than 2 depending
on the LOADng-authors' thoughts.

It was mentioned in the meeting that DYMO and LOADng are close. I do
not see that that LOADng and AODVv2 are close (someone mentioned in 83
meeting), but LOADng is a RFC5444-based reactive protocol that is
derived from AODV [RFC3561], it focuses on low power and lossy nets,
but DYMO is derived from DSR and AODV, and so far does not fully use
RFC5444.

The suggestion option 3 maybe not interesting in this stage, because
usually it is better decided by the authors if they like the join
their drafts to one, but it is interesting to the WG to have
alternatives and that DYMO and LOADng are not similar functions. So I
disagree with option-3.

IMHO that AODVv2 does not involve/use similar of LOADng, but it can
use RFC5444 differently from LOADng, or use only RFC5444 techniques.
Also LOADng does not use much of AODV-RFC3561, but it can use its
reactive technique adding to it energy efficiency techniques. LOADng
is for low power routers, but while reading it I am not sure how it
solves the power-problem. Furthermore, LOADng can be pushed to focus
on low-power MANET instead of LLN, it may only have lossy links, not a
lossy network. I suggest to replace 'LLN' in the protocol name to '
Low-power' without lossy-net, and to make its functions consider
network energy consumptions.

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK.

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:08:20 +0200

On 05/29/2012 12:59 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> routers and security purposes.

Yes.

> However, LOADng is for lossy ad-hoc
> networks more than mobile ad-hoc nets.

This distinction does not make sense.

Adhoc networks deal with link that can fluctuate quite a lot. For most 
protocols and routing metrics it doesn't matter if this happens because 
of the metric, the radio environment or movement (exception are 
protocols/metrics that incorporate explicit algorithms for exploiting 
knowledge about movement or even terrain).

Henning Rogge

-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 05:21:21 -0700

+1 

On May 29, 2012, at 4:08 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:

> Adhoc networks deal with link that can fluctuate quite a lot. For most protocols and routing metrics it doesn't matter if this happens because of the metric, the radio environment or movement (exception are protocols/metrics that incorporate explicit algorithms for exploiting knowledge about movement or even terrain).
> 
> Henning Rogge
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:21:08 +0200

I do not know why you think there is no difference between LLN and
MANET in a protocol's perspective, so do you think we should not have
different WGs in IETF?
I did not understand your refering to movment without mentioning that
LOADng-draft specifies that it is for LLN (I do not see in draft any
reference to movement in LOADng!)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This distinction does not make sense.

Adhoc networks deal with link that can fluctuate quite a lot. For most
protocols and routing metrics it doesn't matter if this happens
because of the metric, the radio environment or movement (exception
are protocols/metrics that incorporate explicit algorithms for
exploiting knowledge about movement or even terrain).

Henning Rogge

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 06:23:22 -0700

> MANET in a protocol's perspective, so do you think we should not have

We already have two different WG: MANET and ROLL.

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:19:33 -0700

I agree with Henning. The reactive protocol the MANET WG is tasked to
produce should be RFC5444 compliant.

And as JP pointed out, there are two different WGs with different
charters. MANET is tasked, amongst other, to publish a reactive
routing protocol.

Ulrich

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Henning Rogge
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> protocols and routing metrics it doesn't matter if this happens because of
> the metric, the radio environment or movement (exception are

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:45:12 +0200

> We already have two different WG: MANET and ROLL.

Yes we know. That is why LOADng authors should choose either to serve
LLN that is considered by ROLL WG or they choose serving MANET, and it
is considered by MANET WG. But the question is which suggestion option
do you think is better for LOADng-draft?

>MANET is tasked, amongst other, to publish a reactive
>routing protocol.

MANET is tasked to publish routing protocols that serve the MANET
network. IMO, MANET-WG is not tasked to publish protocols serving only
LLN just because the protocol is reactive. Please note that LOADng
protocol does not even mention MANET nor mobile routers in its draft,
which confuses its purpose, the authors should look into that.

Abdussalam Baryun

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 05:21:40 -0700

On May 30, 2012, at 3:45 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> LLN just because the protocol is reactive.

JP> I am completely sharing your view, but this is up to the MANET's WG chairs of course.

> Please note that LOADng

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:09:08 +0200

Hi

Thanks for your reply. however, it was stated by WG-Chairs in the
83-meeting, that the chairs have no decision or no horse in the
proposal of LOADng. They wanted the discussions on the WG list, not in
the companies chatting out of MANET-IETF.

In summery, so far I didn't see LOADng-authors/contributors interested
to discuss their proposal on the list, or their effort to adapt to
MANET purposes.

Could any one give me a hint on a good paper or I want to see
performance documents published of the tests on the 1000 nodes running
LOADng (was mentioned in the meeting)?

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:53:53 -0700

Abdussalam,

we are aware that the LOADng draft needs some updates, before it could
be considered by the MANET WG, notably support for RFC5444 and some
editorial updates. We plan to work on these in the next days, and will
submit a new revision likely next week. So, just stay tuned!

Best
Ulrich

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:35:33 +0100

Hi Herberg,

That is a good news for me and think it is for many others, but why we
don't discuss what authors are doing, why we wait. I like that we discuss
while authors updating the draft because they already proposed in the 83
meeting in a very accusing way that MANET is not considering it. Why
proposing if you don't want to discuss your proposal.

Please note that I am interested in LOADng, so I can not wait after hearing
a strong proposal and WG-chairs asking to discuss it. Therefore, I
RECOMMEND in the future no author of any draft should propose ideas until
s/he gets things/thoughts updated first or is able to discuss what s/he is
proposing. Under this condition we don't waste time in discusion-process
and we don't make people forget what was discussed.

Regards
Abdussalam