Re: What was the Chameleon disaster?
Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.manet |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Answering that question would be step one. It’s possible to hypothesise cases, but whether anyone really has them, who knows? In that hypothetical spirit, let’s suppose most users are happy with a proactive protocol. But there are a few who, due to need for covertness, or limited battery life or whatever don’t want to join in. But occasionally they might have a need to communicate. So are prepared to reactively establish a connection. Or maybe they are prepared to accept such a connection. But the proactive net is out there and running, so why not take advantage of it when setting up that reactive route? And that’s a hybrid protocol. But as I said, is there anyone who actually has that requirement? > On 15 Oct 2023, at 18:57, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> which usually does, and should, mean real use cases > > Ok, I'll bite. > > What are the use cases for a hybrid protocol that are not satisfactorily > met by existing protocols? > > -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ manet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet