Re: AODVv2 reference

Hi Christopher,

I thank you for your important feedback, and would want that the WG discuss
in the future meetings the OLSRv2 with presentations or work in progress
related, while considering your feedback/points for OLSRv2/RFC7181
future/development.

Best regards

Abdussalam Baryun

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 1:42 AM Christopher Dearlove <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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]> 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]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
>
>

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