Re: MANET Charter Review

Hi Henning,

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 1:12 PM Henning Rogge <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 4:49 PM Don Fedyk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > We had a lightly attended MANET Interim to discuss the current Charter,
> updates including the addition of Babel, and some other items.
> > This is a three week call for feedback on these items or any new items.
> A list is in the minutes. Please review them.
> > Please use the MANET list for any replies.
> >
> > If you suggest or support an item, please indicate whether you would be
> able to contribute to that work – author or coauthor a draft.
> >
> > Items that have no indication of people to work on them will not be
> added to the charter.
>
> > Babel Domain talk to an OLSR domain.
> Does this mean beyond import/export of route-prefixes?
>
> Funny thing, if we consider a hierarchy of (manet) routing protocols,
> we could use DLEP for this kind of exchange... The "lower level MANET
> protocol" could just pretend to be an IP routing radio and use DLEP
> with Link-ID extension to communicate its metric and reachable
> prefixes to the "upper level MANET protocol".
>

IMHO the DLEP is very important for all MANET routings, we need to use in
multicast, and we use it especially in hybrid routing. So also I think we
will need an informational draft for OLSR use of DLEP as well.


> > DLEP Maintenance - No Brainer Keep
> :)
>
> I have a couple of additional things I want to introduce to the WG
> when my current drafts (hopefully) will be adopted.
>

The adoption call was ended I think in 22 september so it should be adopted
by now.


> > Hybrid (proactive /reactive) Routing protocol
> MANET WG failed at "reactive routing" because of non-technical
> issues... I don't think Hybrid protocols would do much better. I still
> remember the Chameleon disaster.
>

I agree it was a disaster, but I asked the previous WG chair those days and
he was not sure how to solve non-technical issues, may be time can solve it
and my response was to leave it for sometime also without using IETF
solution procedures. This time we need to use them, if such issues happen
again, then we will not let that disaster happen again without doing IETF
full procedures to stop it, and I think our WG chairs will support that.


> > Multicast
> Not sure it is worth the effort... unless we have lots of spare
> capacity, IP-multicast is often a bad solution for group
> communication.
>

Usually most of MANET IP purpose is multicast services as
group_communications, and not like unicast as IP infrastructure purpose, so
we need in IETF MANET WG to answer these questions maybe with a new
informational draft which I want to participate to write if possible.

Best Regards
AB

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet