Re: [manet] DYMO and other routing protocols

["Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins at nokia.com>]

Hello Alexandru,

ext Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> I think the classification on-demand vs proactive is conceptual only,
> helping frame one's mind around two ways of obtaining routes.
Well, leaving aside the notion that all work in the IETF is
conceptual only, I am not sure just what you mean.  In my
view, on-demand routing is one of the main contributions
of [manet] to routing technology.
> That classification can't really be used to pit a protocol vs another.
It has proved to be a very useful conceptual tool, helping
a lot of people organize their thoughts about the way
protocols work.
> Similary, DYMO says it's on-demand but it should advertise RREP (or
> RREQs) periodically if it needs to maintain up to date information at
> all times.  Making it reactive.
I know you meant "proactive".  This is not in the protocol
specification, but for some particular cases I quite agree.
A better example would be "HELLO" messaging.

Generally speaking, just because two classifications are
not mathematically contradictory, does not make them
useless -- right??  We use blue and green to describe things
as needed, and no one complains based on the existence of
turquoise or aqua.  If you would rephrase your point to
instead say that we should avoid being constrained by
the way we have classified things in the past, I would very
much agree with you.

Regards,
Charlie P.



_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet