Subject: Re: [manet] Some LLNs are NOT MANETs

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:20:50 +0200

On 10/14/12, Henning Rogge <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have been thinking about running something based on OLSR on a VHF
> radio... which has a channel capacity of up to 8 kBit/s. I also had
> talks with one of the authors at the ROLL group who suggested that
> RIPPLE could replace OLSR for city-wide wifi-based mesh networks.

Good practices and tests with results are important, which we will
need in IETF, hope no one says I don't/cannt present my results. RPL
is better for LLNs, and OLSR is better for City Wide Area Networks.

>
> the ROLL group just focus much more on a very specialized area of
> adhoc networks, which make them accept some optimizations which would
> be not acceptable for MANET.
>

LLN can be ad-hoc or not, but MANETs MUST be ad-hoc, but MANET can be
constrained or not, but LLNs MUST be constrained. IMHO, MANETs are
also specialized not only LLNs.

AB

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:26:02 +0200

> also specialized not only LLNs.

Most of the Community Mesh networks use MANET routing protocols
despite not being adhoc. They are still considered as MANET.

Henning Rogge

-- 
Steven Hawkings about cosmic inflation: "An increase of billions of
billions of percent in a tiny fraction of a second. Of course, that
was before the present government."

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:58:23 +0100

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
Sub: Re: [manet] MANET meeting at IETF85

> I repeat what Adrian said: some if not all LLNs are MANETs. Therefore, if
> we come up with a MANET reactive protocol, it is only logical that for some
> LLNs the reactive MANET protocol would be suitable as well; but clearly,
> MANET should cover the general case of MANETs.
>
>

I agree with statement: some LLNs are MANETs, and not most LLNs are MANET.
<some if not all LLNs.....The *IF* word does not mean guaranteed/confirmed>
However, I agree with > our WG need producing a single reactive protocol
for MANETs, not for *some* MANETs. WG need to be clear that the protocol
you work on is applicable across ALL MANETs not some MANETs [1].

JP> Working chair-hat on, if we have two WGs going in opposite directions
for LLNs, we clearly have an overlap - this is what the chairs of ROLL and
MANET
want to avoid.

UH>Right, and I don't see why there would be overlap.

AB> I see there was an overlap when there was a claim that MANET routing
are better than RPL performance in ROLL meetings, and resulted to an I-D
draft [2] produced for RPL experience, with authors discussing their
observation without their recommendations for RPL specification RFC6550.

IMO, MANET routings are not best solutions for LLNs. The RPL [RFC6550] is
the best solution so far that IETF has produced for such specific MANETs
that are LLNs.
 [1] said at : draft-lln-loadng 15min slot Agenda, minutes of MANET-WG
IETF84.
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences-04
AB

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:08:08 -0700

Hi AB,

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
> [...]

> are better than RPL performance in ROLL meetings,
>
and resulted to an I-D draft [2] produced for RPL experience, with authors
> discussing their observation without their recommendations for RPL
> specification RFC6550.
>

I think that this discussion does not fit in the MANET mailing list. MANET
has not specified RFC6550.
That draft describes the authors' observations of the specification of
RFC6550. It does not say that "MANET routing are better than RPL
performance".

> the best solution so far that IETF has produced for such specific MANETs

In order to determine the performance or suitability of one protocol in
certain scenarios, it would be more helpful to come up with actual results,
than just saying "IMO".

Best regards
Ulrich

---

From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:22:10 +0000

Hi Ulrich,

On Oct 15, 2012, at 3:08 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:

Hi AB,

AB> I see there was an overlap when there was a claim that MANET routing are better than RPL performance in ROLL meetings,
and resulted to an I-D draft [2] produced for RPL experience, with authors discussing their observation without their recommendations for RPL specification RFC6550.

I think that this discussion does not fit in the MANET mailing list. MANET has not specified RFC6550.
That draft describes the authors' observations of the specification of RFC6550. It does not say that "MANET routing are better than RPL performance".

JP> There are papers dong the comparison, if this is what you want, I will try to see if they can share the result of their research. Agree that this does not belong to the
MANET WG mailing list.

IMO, MANET routings are not best solutions for LLNs. The RPL [RFC6550] is the best solution so far that IETF has produced for such specific MANETs that are LLNs.

In order to determine the performance or suitability of one protocol in certain scenarios, it would be more helpful to come up with actual results, than just saying "IMO".

JP> There are many facts that can be shared, and will be shared.

Thanks.

Best Regards.

JP.

Best regards
Ulrich

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:55:38 +0200

Hi Ulrich,

My comments in line below,

> RFC6550. It does not say that "MANET routing are better than RPL

I know that MANET did not specify the Request For Comment 6550, but
MANET WG is an IETF WG, so if there is some idea its participants have
they should *comment* as Reply to RFC6550 to ROLL WG *directly* for
the IETF progress.

 If you read the minutes of MANET WG meeting IETF84 [1] you will find
there was a discussion, my input was only a reflection. Please note
that refering to I-D [2] was in the minutes which I agree that we
SHOULD delete from our MANET minutes because it is another *overalp*
(I don't beleive that the I-D name was pronounced in the meeting but
the minute writter prefered to advertise the name).

I RECOMMEND the Chair of MANET to delete the name of RPL experience
I-D from the minutes because it is/was note said just indicated such
as draft not named.

> certain scenarios, it would be more helpful to come up with actual results,

I seen results from participants *in IETF* about that performance, and
if the IETF created a ROLL WG then it is a big reason known why
(because MANET routings cannot handle *All LLNs* or specific-LLN
scenarios), please note that until now there in no result presented in
IETF shows against my opinion, therefore my opinion still stands,
which I beleive it is the opinion of IETF. We should not take results
from outside the IETF and beleive them just because they were
presented in the world. We can present thoes results and discuss it so
we can go progress in IETF. If no one likes to discuss them then they
are not relavent in IETF until presented in meetings, discussion
lists, new drafts, etc.. Therefore, OLSRv2, AODVv2, and LOADng cannot
handle All LLNs like RPL [RFC6550] can handle, this is what I
understand from IETF output decisions, if I am wrong please advise.

[1]  Minutes of MANET-WG IETF84, manet-tools, July, 2012.
[2]  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences-04

Best Regards
AB

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:33:49 -0700

Hi AB,

> I-D from the minutes because it is/was note said just indicated such

I strongly disagree. I have listened to the audio again. Thomas Clausen
clearly named the moniker of the draft. The minutes are supposed to reflect
what has been said in the meeting.

[...]

Best
Ulrich

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:01:34 +0100

I will check it again as well, but as you said it is out of scope to MANET
WG to discuss LLN or RPL, then the draft refered to was out of scope and we
as MANET WG should take it out of the minutes and delet any noise.

Please note that the minutes should be called consensus before approved.

AB

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:08:46 -0700

Hi AB,

> as MANET WG should take it out of the minutes and delet any noise.

Absolutely not. The minutes reflect what has been said. You may not agree
with what has been discussed in the meeting; it is the chairs'
responsibility to lead the WG meeting and to decide whether discussions are
relevant. And I think they do a great job. It is the minute-takers job to
reflect as accurately as possible what has been said in the meeting.

> Please note that the minutes should be called consensus before approved.

This is a question to the chairs, so I won't answer here. Just that: Do you
have any concrete item that you believe has not been represented correctly?

Best
Ulrich

>
> AB
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>wrote:
>
>> Hi AB,
>>