|
North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
- From: Fred Baker
- Date: Wed Feb 15 16:36:43 2006
- Authentication-results: imail.cisco.com; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass (message from cisco.com verified; );
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1346; t=1140039519; x=1140471719;c=relaxed/simple; s=nebraska; h=Subject:From:Date:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version;d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com>|Subject:Re=3A=20protocols=20that=20don't=20meet=20the=20need...|To:Christian=20Kuhtz=20<kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>;X=v=3Dmtcc.com=3B=20h=3DpLsUX/FYqS9kRMgUYXFHo/Vyd4s=3D; b=bTnNRu+Uo+xdyScgGsxynQrzezPULHxc895FO1rN02XpkGeIdXAtyC5CzF0EpAmceV2oapZEzSG5pwU+aXg5gM4HUVvaiTZhZA2TyarGCzXPNKXVHyr1w4bY3K4+ezxE6hlbrYcYccggrMS0/ehrIXnPQeZHJWVBKnteJoMXdqk=;
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. :-/
|
|
|
