Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
From: Fred Baker <fred () cisco com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:35:31 -0800


The big question there is whether it is helpful for an operator of a wired network to comment on a routing technology for a network that is fundamentally dissimilar from his target topology. Not that there is no valid comment - the security issues are certainly related. But if you want to say "but in my continental or global fiber network I don't plan to run a manet, so this is entirely stupid" - which is nearly verbatim the operator comment I got in a discussion of manet routing in a university setting three years ago - the logical answer is "we didn't expect you to; do you have comments appropriate to a regional enterprisish network whose 'core' is a set of unmanned airplanes flying in circles and connects cars, trucks, and other kinds of vehicles?".

So operators are certainly welcome in a research group, but I would suggest that operator concerns/requirements be tailored to operational use of a manet network in a context where it *is* appropriate.

On Feb 14, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Christian Kuhtz 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. :-/


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]