[88715] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker)
Wed Feb 15 16:36:00 2006
In-Reply-To: <990A4407-8D65-4211-8BB1-E068EDC96C3A@corp.earthlink.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:35:31 -0800
To: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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. :-/
