mailing list archives
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
From: David Meyer <dmm () 1-4-5 net>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:23:03 -0800
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 07:09:38PM -0500, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
On Feb 14, 2006, at 5:07 PM, David Meyer wrote:
Hmm, well, when there is lots of vendor and academia involvement, no,
there's no operator community presented in number of things I'm
following in the IETF. Take manet, for example, I don't even know to
begin where to inject operator concerns/requirements. :-/
Well taken. And further, I would say manet is more the
rule than the exception in this respect. BTW, it took me
years to become facile with the (IETF) process (if I'm
even there now :-)). I can say that I had excellent
mentoring (Randy and perhaps a few others), so that
helped. Maybe we need something not as formal as an IETF
liaison relationship, but perhaps something like
that. More thinking required...
Thanks for the feedback.
I've been following manet as an interested
party for a while, with no real mission other than tracking it for
emerging technologies R&D. Lately, job is architecting municipal
wireless networks (which is really far more than what most people
think of when they think Sbux style WISP hotspots). And I'm looking
at the IETF for what's been worked out so far with respect to
wireless routing protocols for example, and I just can't help sitting
here scratching my head about how I would ever use what they've come
up with so far. And right now, I really can't without major
modifications it seems. And I find that really sad actually.
That is a perfect example of the reason why we need more
"reality clue" (or whatever) from the ops community in
the standards process (choose your SDO). IMO, of
course; others will (strenuously) differ with me.
And, don't get me wrong, but I'm not trying to bash them at all. I
just think that real world operations needs and concepts like
wholesale access aren't even anywhere near the radar screen it
seems. And that somehow needs to be fixed. And, yes, municipal
wireless is a roller coaster that's still gathering speed, so,
expecting that everything's already grown and ready for us are
thoroughly unrealistic. But! ;-)
Right now the routing protocol on the mesh side will likely be
proprietary for some time, which really isn't in the operator's best
interest but that's what we have to work with. I/we have a
substantial interest in this becoming more than an academic PhD
thesis exercise, but something that can really be practically used in
the real world.
Now, there is stuff in the MPLS community, for example, that I've
followed more or less closely for the past 7 yrs that might actually
be fruitful, but it too requires substantial tailoring. So, no
worries about job security there. ;-)
I think this is as much an IETF issue as it is of the operator
community. Operators need to devote time to IETF to make the work in
the IETF most relevant to the operators needs.
Yes, and this has always been an acute problem as long as
I've been around. People have day (night, weekend
jobs). Co-location of the meetings seems a possible way
to start attacking one aspect that problem, with the
understanding that perhaps travel isn't the biggest of
the problems, but it is a non-trivial issue for many of
Agreed. I'm headed to the IEEE 802 plenary in a couple of weeks to
start working standards body stuff for us as well, some of what needs
to happen is lower layer stuff. The less trips and the more I can
combine them, the more likely my management will look at my travel
expense submissions in a favorable light ;-).. So, the more
incentive we can provide with that, the better.
I talked a bit with the (relatively new) IAD (IETF
Administrative types) about what might be done here. This
is something that will take some thought and if anything
comes of that, some serious planning.
A while back, there was a desire to colo ARIN with NANOG. That's
really cool to see happen. For me, no offense to anyone, I really
couldn't care less at the moment. I'm on the opposite side of the
spectrum, ARIN being a vehicle for operationalized networks rather
than those who are about to be operationalized. So, perhaps NANOG
should be paired up with other industry forums in some kind of
rotation.. Anyone got ideas on this?
Re NANOG/ARIN: The times I've been involved in the joint
meetings I've found them very useful.
Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Daniel Roesen (Feb 15)
Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 15)
Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Michael . Dillon (Feb 15)
Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Alexei Roudnev (Feb 15)