Re: AODVv2 reference

Any invitation to give a presentation would’ve to come from the chairs. And at this remove I assume there’s already an agenda, plus it would be short notice to create a presentation. I plan to remotely attend, but can’t guarantee it.

That said, let me summarise what I think. I’ve said most if not all of this before I think.

First, the most important input would come from those using OLSRv2, or having a real use case for it or something based on it. Such people - or at least such people publicly - are rather thin on the ground. Note that by real use case I mean someone wanting to actually field devices using this, not just an academic case.

A missing document (in the IETF it would be an Informational RFC) is one describing how the various features of OLSRv2 can be used to handle particular cases - for example responsive networks, stabilising networks, networks with platforms with different characteristics, fisheye mechanism and so on. Some of this primarily exists (or existed) in the thoughts of the authors but has not been published. (Note that the related matter of why the changes from OLSRv1 to OLSRv2 were made has been covered in at least two publications, probably three including Ulrich Herberg’s PhD thesis. One, limited to link metrics, is RFC 7185. The other is a not well known) NATO conference paper https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA584177.pdf

In considering that, I did identify a small detail that I think could be added. It’s a compatible detail, because it just suggests that a router could do something (send a TC message in certain circumstances) that is always allowed, but there might be a suggested reason for (creating a responsive network). This could be either a ST or informational RFC. But note my first point - is there a demand?

Other developments are possible, to take two examples hybridising proactive and reactive operation (except I think you should generalise further to policies) or hybridising proactive and store and forward (delay tolerant) networks. (The latter might be complicated by a patent that I’m an inventor own, but have no financial interest in.) But I see neither the public demand nor the effort needed - the latter being substantial. Or smaller but useful tasks such as possibly better MPR selection heuristics.

Christopher Dearlove

> On 16 Mar 2024, at 07:20, Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Christopher,
> 
> I am interested in your future views of OLSRv2 (RFC7181, manet proactive routing) or future manet routing updates, I seen in the past you pointed out important updates on the mailing list and not in ietf meetings, but if we can have a remote presentation from you of even 10 minutes in our WG meeting 119 (even without material submitted because already on the list), it will be very much helpful for future RFC7181 developments. Also my interest is that we get new results of new evaluations of our WG routing protocols while defining use cases or defined mobility scenarios, which I am working for that goal.
> 
> Best regards,
> AB
> 
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 4:10 PM Christopher Dearlove <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> I was taking a quick look at the AODVv2 draft in the meeting materials - it seems to be the only meeting material.
>> 
>> (I might remote access the MANET meeting, but not certain and not with much if anything to say about AODVv2.)
>> 
>> I did notice that the reference I-D.ietf-manet-ibs is outdated, this is now - has been for a while - RFC 7859.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

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