[manet] Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-cha nnel-utilization-01

On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 9:35 AM Abdussalam Baryun <
[email protected]> wrote:

> > On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 11:18 PM Russ White via Datatracker <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Document: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-channel-utilization
>> >> Title: DLEP Radio Channel Utilization Extension
>> >> Reviewer: Russ White
>> >> Review result: Has Nits
>>
> [...]

> >> ==
>
> >> ==
>> >> The router can calculate statistics on the channel usage ...
>> >>
>> >> Maybe:
>> >>
>> >> The router can calculate channel usage statistics ...
>> >>
>>
>
> to calculate channel utilization (channel usage stat) we will also need to
> define/calculate the total measure time, which can be different from busy
> time or active time, what do you think?
>
>
>
>> >> ==
>> >> Is there a potential need for these calculations to apply to either
>> spread
>> >> spectrum or beam forming systems? I suppose these calculations could
>> be "per
>> >> reachable neighbor" in that case, but the document doesn't say
>> anything about
>> >> these situations, so I thought I'd ask.
>>
>
> The DLEP is at layer 2 as specified in RFC8175 so the draft may need to
> define the radio channel. Usually beamforming is with the point-to-point
> links and mostly related to layer 1, but this draft is specifying the
> shared medium channel calculations.
>
>>
>>
The radio channel can be defined by considering different layer 1
technologies which will help in utilization or routing decisions.

However, you introduced a good point regarding beamforming tech at layer 1
that affects such considerations, and I re-read the draft......and as the
draft did not mention/exclude such beamforming technology (which is known
technology in manet technologies/use cases) , it should be a good optional
tlv requirement while having this technology which can affect radio channel
utilizations.

Usually in MANET RFCs if technology not mentioned/excluded then can be
included as long it does not conflict with the RFC,

and here your point does add an important issue that this draft needs to
either specify the-excluding or should look into such manet-general-purpose
utilization of radio channels.

So your point will include the spatial use dimensions of the radio channel,
which adds complexity as well, but can be important and provide advantages.

Optional tlvs: 1) active-beamforming mode tlv, 2) used-beam ID tlv, 3)
used-beam direction tlv, 4) used-beam width tlv, 5) used-beam scheduling
tlv.

The first one can introduce no beamforming mode, or zero type, which the
draft does now. Also at omnidirectional beam mode (active beam, or enabled
channel) the channel policy or schedule can be important.

I think it is good to add these tlvs to the draft, if not we will need to
discuss it.

Finally, the beamforming will add/consider to the calculation usage time
and space, so total usage time is adding all busy times per their active
beams, and divided by the total time of all active beams. We may need to
exclude beam switching times. Overall we will need to discuss the
calculation method in the next meeting as well.

Best Regards,
AB

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]