Send manet mailing list submissions to
manet at ietf.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
manet-request at ietf.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
manet-owner at ietf.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of manet digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: DYMO and other routing protocols (Charles E. Perkins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:40:05 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins at nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [manet] DYMO and other routing protocols
To: ext Ian Chakeres <ian.chakeres at gmail.com>, David Murray
<30179198 at student.murdoch.edu.au>
Cc: manet at ietf.org
Message-ID: <4666FF85.2040306 at nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hello folks,
I am quite hopeful that we can get to a converged
routing protocol that will subsume the best aspects
of DYMO and OLSR. We have many recent
results pointing the way forward, some of which
I presented at the last IETF. I am hoping to have
a much more complete presentation ready for the
next meeting.
I think it is clear by now that proactive protocol
operation is better when either there is a strong
requirement for minimizing latency in an uncongested
network, or when the traffic patterns are not very
sparse. So, for instance, if most nodes in an ad
hoc network have open communications with most
other nodes in the same network, the communication
pattern is not at all sparse. The tricky point is to find
out how dense the traffic pattern needs to be in order
to favor proactive operation (or, alternatively, how
sparse the traffic has to be in order to favor
reactive operation).
Furthermore, it is quite likely that some routes
should be proactively maintained even if route
table entries are generally acquired on demand.
The canonical example is that nodes need a
route to a gateway [if one exists] (or default router)
often enough that the route should always be there.
Whether this is done by periodic advertisement or
by triggered route repairs is a matter for further
study. One could imagine similar requirements
might be imposed for important servers in the
network (e.g., certificate authority, data sink, ...).
I do _not_ think that proactive protocols should
automatically be the choice for mesh backbone routers.
Certainly not for all mesh clients...! I would really
question whether it is needed for all other mesh
points anyway. Plus, the whole concept gets quite
fuzzy if there are intermittent long-range connections
to neighboring meshes (as an example).
Regarding the naming of AODV vs. DYMO: this is
a long story with as much political as technical content,
and for my own part the former was by far the more
persuasive factor to persuade me to agree to a new
name for the standards-track reactive protocol.
Now the downside is that we have exactly the confusion
in evidence currently for newly interested parties. Perhaps
we should rename DYMO to be AODVv2 :-)
Finally, regarding:
> I think each protocol and its supporters can easily make a case
> where it will beat other protocols. Simply look at conference
> publications for good examples.
Simply stated: caveat emptor.
Stated more verbosely and redundantly using more words
and so on...
---> it is very important to fully understand the range
of applicability for each research result. These are
sometimes not stated very clearly. It is also very
helpful, when possible, to understand the motivations
of the authors.
Regards,
Charlie P.
ext Ian Chakeres wrote:
> There is no winner takes all in the contest of routing protocols for
> MANET. I think each protocol and its supporters can easily make a case
> where it will beat other protocols. Simply look at conference
> publications for good examples.
>
> That said, we have chosen to standardize DYMO and OLSRv2 - one
> reactive and one reactive protocol in the MANET WG. For more
> information regarding when one might deploy one or the other, please
> see the applicability statements in the drafts.
>
> DYMO is a successor to AODV (and other reactive protocols). The
> specification is chartered to become a proposed standard. AODV is not
> being actively discussed or standardized in the WG.
>
> Ian
>
> On 6/6/07, David Murray <30179198 at student.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am wondering how DYMO fits in with the other routing protocols. I
>> have read a number of papers that discuss how on-demand routing
>> protocols like DSR/AODV work better in highly mobile environments where
>> movement is fast, CPU and memory are low and batteries are limited.
>> Equally, in situations where movement is very low, and there are no
>> power limitations, protocols like OLSR/TBRPF/STAR perform better.
>>
>> So, I have a mental picture of OLSR/TBRPF being predominantly used in
>> stationary 802.11 mesh devices and AODV/DYMO being used to connect
>> users mobile devices ush as phones and PDAs. Is this correct or are
>> things not quite as simple as this? (I know RFC 2501 discusses MANET
>> applications and characteristics but the discussion is quite general)
>>
>> If this is correct, it seems to me that DYMO and AODV are used in very
>> similar situations (the ad hoc interconnect between users devices). I
>> am aware that DYMO is a simplified version of AODV both in code and
>> network operation. It seems like the major difference is the path
>> accumulation feature in DYMO which allows nodes to append their
>> information to a RREP to give other nodes better knowledge of the
>> topology. It also seems that the hello feature has been removed in
>> DYMO. So, is DYMO likely to be a replacement for AODV or do they have
>> different uses/applications?
>>
>> Thanks for your time
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet at ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
End of manet Digest, Vol 38, Issue 10
*************************************