Re: What was the Chameleon disaster?
Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.manet |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>>> 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? > Answering that question would be step one. Agreed. > 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. At that point, they announce a host route to self, and point default at a neighbour that announces a default route. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8966.html#name-stub-implementations https://github.com/jech/sbabeld > Or maybe they are prepared to accept such a connection. In this case, you need a protocol extension that requests a node to announce a route to self. It should not be too onerous to define, but I'd like to convince myself there's an actual need. A use case for a true hybrid protocol would be somewhat more difficult to construct, it would probably involve a node that doesn't need continuous connectivity but at the same time can occasionally serve for transit. We, at Babel Towers, are of course always interested to hear about novel use-cases for routing protocols. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ manet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet