Subject: [nemo] RE: Question about RO taxonomy(2nd mail)

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:26:15 +0100

> I have a question about RO taxonomy.
> In particular, I consider "nested mobile network" case.
> 
> In your draft, you only consider a DSR or an AODV as a internal
routing
> protocol.
> That point is my question.
> Why don't you consider MANET protocol of proactive method?
> 
> In general, reactive method has better performance when the node has
high
> mobility.
> However, if there is a mobile network including nested mobile network
like a
> your example,
> each mobile network may has low mobility.
> 
> Is there any special reason on that?

You're right:

The assumption was that the nodes were highly mobile regarding each
other. Depending on the degree and the type of mobility, various MANET
approaches apply. If they are moving together as a 'solid', a classical
proactive solution does the trick. 

You can use OSPF at home, make the MRHA tunnel a not so stubby area and
make the MR an ASBR... In that case you can run the protocol you want in
the solid cloud and exchange the routes with the HA. I'm not sure we
have a use case for such a deployment, though.

Maybe we can modify the text to make it more open (and vague actually :)
Do you feel it's needed? 

Pascal

---

From: Jung-Hoon Cheon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:48:19 +0900

>> routing protocol.
>> high mobility.
>> like a your example,

> have a use case for such a deployment, though.

Most vehicles are moving along route(on the road or in the air).
a mobile network with nested mobile networks seems a solid cloud.

Consider several buses with high school students are moving on the road.
Each bus is a mobile network separately.
When a student in a BUS 1 who want to communicate with other student 
in a BUS 2, each mobile router can imagine that they located in same mobile
network.

At that time, to get information for rechability, 
proactive solution is easier than reactive approches.
Of course, proactive solutions may load heavy work on mobile routers.

> Maybe we can modify the text to make it more open (and vague actually :)

IMHO we apply MANET protocol as a internal routing protocol case by case.
I wonder why did you only consider reactive solutions for that.

> Pascal

Jung-Hoon