From service@irs.gov  Sat Mar  1 11:18:55 2008
Return-Path: <service@irs.gov>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259593A67EA
	for <ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat,  1 Mar 2008 11:18:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -91.235
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-91.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.208, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML=0.001,
	FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_UK=1.749, HTML_MESSAGE=1,
	HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.097, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RDNS_NONE=0.1,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id voST358iDbl1
	for <ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com>;
	Sat,  1 Mar 2008 11:18:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from theworksrec.co.uk (unknown [87.85.234.18])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F170F3A67F8
	for <manet-archive@ietf.org>; Sat,  1 Mar 2008 11:18:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from User ([82.78.190.231]) by theworksrec.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	 Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:55:07 +0000
Reply-To: <no-reply@irs.gov>
From: "Internal Revenue Service"<service@irs.gov>
Subject: Fiscal Activity - Tax Refund ( ID: IRS980221 )
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 20:51:18 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1251"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <BRADFORDHQRNhFCfywE0000047a@theworksrec.co.uk>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Mar 2008 18:55:10.0311 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6286F70:01C87BCD]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

<font face="Tahoma" size="2">After the last
            annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have<br> determined that
            you are eligible to receive a tax refund of <b>$129.72</b>.<br>Please
            submit the tax refund request and allow us 3-9 days in order to<br>
            process it.</font><p>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2">A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons.<br>
For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline.<p>
                        <font size="2" face="Tahoma">To access your tax refund,
            please <b><a href="http://www.artesaniasleo.com.ar/ventas/catalog/admin/images/categories/secure.php"><font color="red">click here</a></b></font><br><br><br>
                        <font face="Tahoma" size="2">Best Regards, <br>
Tax Refund Deparment<br>
            Internal Revenue Service</font></p>
<font face="Tahoma" color="#C0C0C0" size="2">&copy; Copyright 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;TAX REFUND ID: IRS980221


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Sun Mar  2 00:00:54 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776C728C36D;
	Sun,  2 Mar 2008 00:00:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.093
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270,
	BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611,
	HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6,
	J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 82UMxivU1GLO; Sun,  2 Mar 2008 00:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257C23A691C;
	Sun,  2 Mar 2008 00:00:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BCB3A694F
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Sun,  2 Mar 2008 00:00:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id A+3PjREQVmwG for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Sun,  2 Mar 2008 00:00:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.241])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB703A691C
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun,  2 Mar 2008 00:00:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so1234961and.122
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:00:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
	bh=x65vhrIZzFykSKW7mKKlEllxRj+nWg9CXs5YreNzBUI=;
	b=SJk0xZm5vkrZBWW90PEtWQuSQLFVWoXBDOVOXdGt0OVYTi1cHpJfGnAEY2Ih+GLlKFSQLNmsMWs+Wujy+7LQEfT3ok2NwF/Ckim8Tlnby3LOD4Jvp6s1h9JlGYpvK0FzePOZ0oFH7AmYlQQ/bvrisHmSfSC8VUvF9E+hrHFGhAU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
	b=SaR6RcfP7NtSQzymP5vHJrKsM7m6D0pFqx8zQ14kIiOnL75qEY+BwUZh5Im9PmwvVLENUiLU9aSatE8w45Y9I0Yri631wKpXIxDAnM8rxQK6ba2yvmF3F02MwqMndCEBeL84nwM402XmaidLVIoWPh75gfpxWIKNdWN/7XRpo88=
Received: by 10.100.112.6 with SMTP id k6mr25356554anc.27.1204444841698;
	Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.242.18 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 00:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <282e82330803020000h19316d6cm7b05f65619ec1df1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:30:41 +0530
From: "Kshtrajyn kumar" <kumar.kshtrajyn@gmail.com>
To: manet@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [manet] regarding ADHOC protocols
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1413472363=="
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1413472363==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_7507_10441969.1204444841704"

------=_Part_7507_10441969.1204444841704
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I am a B.tech 4th student at VIT,Vellore,India.
I am doing my project work this semester..
Project is about define new new protocol for MANETs.
Its AQR(Adaptive quality of service routing)..its IEEE(2006) paper.
I dont know how to write our own protocol and implement it in NS-2..
can you help me in this?..

KSHTRAJYN KUMAR
B.tech(ECE)
VIT,Vellore,INDIA

------=_Part_7507_10441969.1204444841704
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I am a B.tech 4th student at VIT,Vellore,India.</div>
<div>I am doing my project work this semester..</div>
<div>Project is about define new new protocol for MANETs.</div>
<div>Its AQR(Adaptive quality of service routing)..its IEEE(2006) paper.</div>
<div>I dont know how to write our own protocol and implement it in NS-2..</div>
<div>can you help me in this?..</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>KSHTRAJYN KUMAR</div>
<div>B.tech(ECE)</div>
<div>VIT,Vellore,INDIA</div>

------=_Part_7507_10441969.1204444841704--

--===============1413472363==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--===============1413472363==--


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Sun Mar  2 23:38:36 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26AE828C32A;
	Sun,  2 Mar 2008 23:38:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.332
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.895, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id HzrhAQeaj5Rh; Sun,  2 Mar 2008 23:38:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0653A3A68A7;
	Sun,  2 Mar 2008 23:38:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1BBD3A68A7
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Sun,  2 Mar 2008 23:38:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id LOeVsbH3N7u6 for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Sun,  2 Mar 2008 23:38:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.229])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191FD3A688F
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun,  2 Mar 2008 23:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c30so189755wra.14
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:38:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
	bh=gX/tvbsItUaIWVIryO47z9u2XZGTnmK1Dqztl6zUMz8=;
	b=IMBlnm+eo38lCqVrZOOFWjEncpuqvBEtU7kG5OAkzWd8HKUiQgYk75RprjtkKwfpqT5aIC5OKOahvfwfyvYXNPpUUnVJD7PwrMZpXZCF9DPpHOxolElwtLIZ6W6Ju1V0uYJ0p00s/Kqh94xxcra8YHEo/lY8gN4WnXqgfPhZvKc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
	b=GnMd4A8XhMMF43KCrrm/PSd5ZRzX7sk80dhNU6wDv+c+HUTnD1jcqhJ4TQZllBrPZ7SKav33WO9nGlwS44/OY580oK8i0gjK9E7M1sTz3tEnXbPvEqlO+ICbbsJa9D/GN3iMQwhidDsLubYHH5NYIoCJxbr4kpEG1RvjJgja2HE=
Received: by 10.100.7.1 with SMTP id 1mr28767429ang.59.1204529901822;
	Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.210.16 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 23:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:08:21 +0530
From: "Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
To: manet <manet@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

I have posted a preliminary agenda for IETF 71 at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt.

Please let us know if you there are other items that you'd like discussed.

Thanks.
Ian Chakeres

Note: Several items (marked TBD) are not confirmed, and they may not
make it onto the final agenda given our two hour timeslot.
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar  3 01:09:36 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B78A3A6A74;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 01:09:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.206
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-1.769, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id tifubxJpT5yj; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 01:09:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3AF3A6A7E;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 01:09:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80EC3A6A9C
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 01:09:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 5rI0M+sNk5XM for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 01:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.bae.co.uk (smtp2.bae.co.uk [20.133.0.12])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDC43A6FA7
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 01:08:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpb.greenlnk.net (smtpb.greenlnk.net [10.15.160.219])
	by smtp2.bae.co.uk (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id
	m2397Swe024126 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:07:28 GMT
Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET (glkas0002.greenlnk.net [10.15.184.52])
	by smtpb.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id
	m2397S4m004088 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:07:28 GMT
Received: from glkms1100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.108]) by
	glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite;
	Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:07:28 -0000
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.93]) by
	glkms1100.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); 
	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:07:27 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:07:26 -0000
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719DB1FB3A@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
Thread-Index: Ach9AZiR1QM79jFYQj+DQXhmmlqamgAC304Q
References: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: "Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>, "manet" <manet@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2008 09:07:27.0893 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[00F1F450:01C87D0E]
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org


I don't believe this item is appropriate

 o Loop Detection/Avoidance Discussion - TBD
    - draft-hokelek-rlfap-01.txt

First, the work (from different authors, but with that
title) presented at the last IETF meeting failed to
show any evidence of a problem, as was clear from its
evidently incorrect static results, and had results which
were entirely explicable based on the incorrect implementation
of link quality described in that ID. The results were also
at odds with the rest of the literature.

Second, I've only just skimmed this ID, but as far as I can
see it is not aimed at MANETs, the word "MANET" does not
appear in it and none of the references are to MANET protocols
(but there is at least one to backbone routing).

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Ian Chakeres
Sent: 03 March 2008 07:38
To: manet
Subject: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda


               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

I have posted a preliminary agenda for IETF 71 at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt.

Please let us know if you there are other items that you'd like
discussed.

Thanks.
Ian Chakeres

Note: Several items (marked TBD) are not confirmed, and they may not
make it onto the final agenda given our two hour timeslot.
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar  3 05:29:12 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1767A3A6D94;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 05:29:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.014
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.014 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.171,
	BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id mEe-F7lhReNI; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 05:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070543A6A13;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 05:29:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8123A691E
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 05:29:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id LHAQZu6VJX91 for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 05:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.176])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2C63A6996
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 05:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k40so9508wah.25
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:28:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
	bh=3m569OrrOAVF7+zH6VJ2V/t1xe2WOaH9vl5/evQP69g=;
	b=E/xj5oyOTVKymFTEhtwJ8gE1Br02HqmW3SbpQ9qbVGCRTaRzztDBEVkYTdbV9e/jEX4F1+Ay0A0uXrQq5/ubf1Peay2GzkuEFRIuw5iaCzjU3P3Q9asxdSFTTzrnhLWajjmmW7el/wC5kJBIRacTdggOaV6gbygryfdrr6agQw8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
	b=fJEbDYG0QiwjhVRRMsPVDu5xvenXhIpCFqdjr9YXBWxWazt2lLvFaTBSM49Hh6jV7j8ZfcTihy0jzalk/jZFUAgrTQ+rRSACZF1J/iS+6Zstz2GLdCmw/Qa+GeRuSNSn657UMvuwEve8uXmbuXdf/MLQbb7V0NDemm5I28er3GQ=
Received: by 10.114.254.1 with SMTP id b1mr4152598wai.140.1204550929843;
	Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:28:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.109.8 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 05:28:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1716228e0803030528l3ca8d42cu15c1ad1104c94d14@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:28:49 +0900
From: "Yasunori Owada" <owada@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719DB1FB3A@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719DB1FB3A@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: d94a5907ecfccb8a
Cc: manet <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

I think we need to discuss this problem.
We have implemented OLSRv2 that runs as a Linux daemon and also runs
on QualNet simulator. In our simulation analysis, path looping issue
seldom appears when using abstructed PHY model, but it surely occurs
when realistic PHY parameters such as fading and bit error are given,
and mostly relatively space network topology.
I think, loop detection/avoidance are also required for the wired
network, but it is much significant issue for MANET because of  its
limited wireless bandwidth and its high probability of loop formation
attributed to  its frequency of topology information change and
control packet loss ratio.
I can explain how the loop is formed in OLSR and OLSRv2, that could
not be solved by additional (interval independent) HELLO message.
These loop formation is attributed to the topology information
inconsistency and asynchronous change of routing table. So that we
need to discuss these issues.
Thanks,
-- 
Assistant Professor of Natural Hazard and Disaster Recovery, Niigata
University, Japan.
Yasunori Owada <owada@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp>
TEL: +81-25-262-7429




2008/3/3, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>:
>
>  I don't believe this item is appropriate
>
>   o Loop Detection/Avoidance Discussion - TBD
>     - draft-hokelek-rlfap-01.txt
>
>  First, the work (from different authors, but with that
>  title) presented at the last IETF meeting failed to
>  show any evidence of a problem, as was clear from its
>  evidently incorrect static results, and had results which
>  were entirely explicable based on the incorrect implementation
>  of link quality described in that ID. The results were also
>  at odds with the rest of the literature.
>
>  Second, I've only just skimmed this ID, but as far as I can
>  see it is not aimed at MANETs, the word "MANET" does not
>  appear in it and none of the references are to MANET protocols
>  (but there is at least one to backbone routing).
>
>  --
>  Christopher Dearlove
>  Technology Leader, Communications Group
>  Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
>  BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
>  West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
>  Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124
>
>  BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
>  Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
>  Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
>  Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>  Of Ian Chakeres
>  Sent: 03 March 2008 07:38
>  To: manet
>  Subject: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
>
>
>                *** WARNING ***
>
>  This mail has originated outside your organization,
>  either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
>
>  I have posted a preliminary agenda for IETF 71 at
>  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt.
>
>  Please let us know if you there are other items that you'd like
>  discussed.
>
>  Thanks.
>  Ian Chakeres
>
>  Note: Several items (marked TBD) are not confirmed, and they may not
>  make it onto the final agenda given our two hour timeslot.
>  _______________________________________________
>  manet mailing list
>  manet@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>
>
> ********************************************************************
>  This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>  recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>  recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>  You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>  distribute its contents to any other person.
>  ********************************************************************
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  manet mailing list
>  manet@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar  3 09:46:57 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E2028C3DE;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 09:46:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.727
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id DpFYRwII26K1; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 09:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6DF33A6BD6;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 09:46:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBA928C0DE
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 09:46:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 2hr1iO2XMrck for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 09:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dnsmx1pya.telcordia.com (dnsmx1pya.telcordia.com [128.96.20.31])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF563A6BCD
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 09:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pya-dte-ieg01.dte.telcordia.com (pya-dte-ieg01.cc.telcordia.com
	[128.96.20.21])
	by dnsmx1pya.telcordia.com (8.11.7+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id m23HkaX19286;
	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:46:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rrc-dte-exbh01.dte.telcordia.com ([128.96.150.31])
	by pya-dte-ieg01.dte.telcordia.com (SMSSMTP 4.1.9.35) with SMTP id
	M2008030312463327553 ; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:46:33 -0500
Received: from rrc-dte-exs01.dte.telcordia.com ([128.96.150.34]) by
	rrc-dte-exbh01.dte.telcordia.com with Microsoft
	SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:46:34 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:46:33 -0500
Message-ID: <A09345776B6C7A4985573569C0F30043197E54D0@rrc-dte-exs01.dte.telcordia.com>
In-Reply-To: <1716228e0803030528l3ca8d42cu15c1ad1104c94d14@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
thread-index: Ach9MoyXjvZ0DemkQeOdwwe7mxwkZQAIuV+A
References: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com><ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719DB1FB3A@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
	<1716228e0803030528l3ca8d42cu15c1ad1104c94d14@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Hokelek, Ibrahim" <ihokelek@telcordia.com>
To: <manet@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2008 17:46:34.0126 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[858BF2E0:01C87D56]
Cc: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>,
	macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Dear manet WG members,

There is extensive amount of work on the loop detection/avoidance for
the backbone network. Most of these works assume that link state routing
protocols (LSRPs) (e.g., OSPF and IS-IS) are in use. Micro-loops can
form in any stage of LSRPs (e.g., link metric changes) but especially if
there are link/node failures and hence the topology view of one node
might be different than others for a certain time period. During a
topology change, it might take longer for routing protocols to
convergence to their new routes and this long time may not be tolerated
by real-time applications such as voice and video. The IP Fast-reroute
(IPFRR) framework (draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-08.txt) is proposed
to provide the fast convergence of the underlying routing protocols if
any topology change occurs (e.g., link/node failures). Micro-loops
become more serious issue in the IPFRR context since the routes are also
modified temporarily by the fast reroute process rather than determined
only by routing protocols. 

As we mentioned in our first e-mail, our proposed mechanism targets the
backbone networks but is very generic and applicable to any LSRP. We
would like to get the comments and feedback specifically from the manet
WG members during our presentation if provided. Once we obtain the
requirements of the manet LSRPs (e.g., OLSR and OSPF with MANET
extension), we would like to create a section in our draft to address
the applicability of our work to manet environment. 

I would like to also point out that due to mobility topology changes
occur much more frequently in manet environment than the backbone and
hence multiple simultaneous uncorrelated link failures can be observed
more likely. One important feature of our draft is to handle multiple
simultaneous uncorrelated failures. Another important point is that
LSRPs have certain timers. If these timers are set to small values the
routing convergence times can be reduced but the signaling overhead will
significantly increase. We believe that using our mechanism these timers
can be set to more stable (higher) values without increasing the routing
convergence times.  
 

Regards,
Ibrahim Hokelek

|---------------------------------|
|  Ibrahim Hokelek                | 
|  Telcordia Technologies, Inc.   |
|  Piscataway, NJ                 |
|  Phone: 732-699-3905            |
|  Fax:   732-336-7013            |
|---------------------------------| 

-----Original Message-----
From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Yasunori Owada
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:29 AM
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: manet
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda

I think we need to discuss this problem.
We have implemented OLSRv2 that runs as a Linux daemon and also runs on
QualNet simulator. In our simulation analysis, path looping issue seldom
appears when using abstructed PHY model, but it surely occurs when
realistic PHY parameters such as fading and bit error are given, and
mostly relatively space network topology.
I think, loop detection/avoidance are also required for the wired
network, but it is much significant issue for MANET because of  its
limited wireless bandwidth and its high probability of loop formation
attributed to  its frequency of topology information change and control
packet loss ratio.
I can explain how the loop is formed in OLSR and OLSRv2, that could not
be solved by additional (interval independent) HELLO message.
These loop formation is attributed to the topology information
inconsistency and asynchronous change of routing table. So that we need
to discuss these issues.
Thanks,
--
Assistant Professor of Natural Hazard and Disaster Recovery, Niigata
University, Japan.
Yasunori Owada <owada@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp>
TEL: +81-25-262-7429




2008/3/3, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>:
>
>  I don't believe this item is appropriate
>
>   o Loop Detection/Avoidance Discussion - TBD
>     - draft-hokelek-rlfap-01.txt
>
>  First, the work (from different authors, but with that
>  title) presented at the last IETF meeting failed to
>  show any evidence of a problem, as was clear from its
>  evidently incorrect static results, and had results which
>  were entirely explicable based on the incorrect implementation
>  of link quality described in that ID. The results were also
>  at odds with the rest of the literature.
>
>  Second, I've only just skimmed this ID, but as far as I can
>  see it is not aimed at MANETs, the word "MANET" does not
>  appear in it and none of the references are to MANET protocols
>  (but there is at least one to backbone routing).
>
>  --
>  Christopher Dearlove
>  Technology Leader, Communications Group
>  Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
>  BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
>  West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
>  Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124
>
>  BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
>  Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
>  Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
>  Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf
>  Of Ian Chakeres
>  Sent: 03 March 2008 07:38
>  To: manet
>  Subject: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
>
>
>                *** WARNING ***
>
>  This mail has originated outside your organization,
>  either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
>
>  I have posted a preliminary agenda for IETF 71 at
>  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt.
>
>  Please let us know if you there are other items that you'd like
>  discussed.
>
>  Thanks.
>  Ian Chakeres
>
>  Note: Several items (marked TBD) are not confirmed, and they may not
>  make it onto the final agenda given our two hour timeslot.
>  _______________________________________________
>  manet mailing list
>  manet@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>
>
> ********************************************************************
>  This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>  recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>  recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>  You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>  distribute its contents to any other person.
>  ********************************************************************
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  manet mailing list
>  manet@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar  3 14:01:15 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49CB3A6E53;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 14:01:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.409
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028,
	BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611,
	RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id wESR1ltlfiwX; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 14:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1557228C172;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 14:01:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4E73A6B7C
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 14:01:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 9wyCsnn7-OA1 for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon,  3 Mar 2008 14:01:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxav02.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp (ccmail.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp
	[133.35.23.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56AA728C172
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 14:01:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxav02.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1BD45512C
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue,  4 Mar 2008 07:00:32 +0900 (JST)
Received: from chamame.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp (chamame.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp
	[133.35.169.34])
	by mxav02.cc.niigata-u.ac.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id E557245434D
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue,  4 Mar 2008 07:00:32 +0900 (JST)
Received: (qmail 4680 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2008 07:00:32 +0900
Received: from unknown (HELO neccomputer.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp) (133.35.156.66)
	by chamame.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp with SMTP; 4 Mar 2008 07:00:32 +0900
Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20080304065309.05c69358@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7J rev1.0
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:00:40 +0900
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>,
	"Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>,"manet" <manet@ietf.org>
From: mase <mase@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719DB1FB3A@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK. NET>
References: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719DB1FB3A@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org


At 18:07 08/03/03, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

>I don't believe this item is appropriate
>
>  o Loop Detection/Avoidance Discussion - TBD
>     - draft-hokelek-rlfap-01.txt
>
>First, the work (from different authors, but with that
>title) presented at the last IETF meeting failed to
>show any evidence of a problem, as was clear from its
>evidently incorrect static results, and had results which
>were entirely explicable based on the incorrect implementation
>of link quality described in that ID. The results were also
>at odds with the rest of the literature.

Some follow-up explanations and results on our presentation on loop 
detection at the last IETF were recently submitted in MANET mailing 
list. We welcome detail technical discussions.

Kenichi


>Second, I've only just skimmed this ID, but as far as I can
>see it is not aimed at MANETs, the word "MANET" does not
>appear in it and none of the references are to MANET protocols
>(but there is at least one to backbone routing).
>
>--
>Christopher Dearlove
>Technology Leader, Communications Group
>Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
>BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
>West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
>Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124
>
>BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
>Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
>Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
>Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of Ian Chakeres
>Sent: 03 March 2008 07:38
>To: manet
>Subject: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
>
>
>                *** WARNING ***
>
>This mail has originated outside your organization,
>either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
>I have posted a preliminary agenda for IETF 71 at
>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt.
>
>Please let us know if you there are other items that you'd like
>discussed.
>
>Thanks.
>Ian Chakeres
>
>Note: Several items (marked TBD) are not confirmed, and they may not
>make it onto the final agenda given our two hour timeslot.
>_______________________________________________
>manet mailing list
>manet@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>
>********************************************************************
>This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>distribute its contents to any other person.
>********************************************************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>manet mailing list
>manet@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Tue Mar  4 06:45:00 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0A228C5CF;
	Tue,  4 Mar 2008 06:45:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.122
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.685, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id NclUSJhBJjxX; Tue,  4 Mar 2008 06:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC83F3A6E3E;
	Tue,  4 Mar 2008 06:44:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15883A6E3E
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Tue,  4 Mar 2008 06:44:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id Fn98Vx07cO1g for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue,  4 Mar 2008 06:44:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thsmsgxrt13p.thalesgroup.com (thsmsgxrt13p.thalesgroup.com
	[192.54.144.136])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7383B28C459
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue,  4 Mar 2008 06:44:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thsmsgirt21p.corp.thales (unknown [10.33.231.5])
	by thsmsgxrt13p.thalesgroup.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E552B148154
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue,  4 Mar 2008 15:44:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from thsmgiav12p.corp.thales (10.33.231.32) by
	thsmsgirt21p.corp.thales (7.3.006)
	id 47ADE2A6001D5BBA for manet@ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:44:37 +0100
Received: from (unknown [10.33.231.1]) by thsmgiav12p.corp.thales with smtp
	id 1c95_d8883c9c_e9f8_11dc_a14c_0013725118e7;
	Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:39:50 +0100
Received: from nodalthc2.clb.tcfr.thales (unknown [10.33.8.66])
	by thsmsgirt11p.corp.thales (Postfix) with ESMTP id 553E83C00C
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue,  4 Mar 2008 15:44:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: by nodalthc2.clb.tcfr.thales with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
	id <F4CWKCHM>; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:44:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CA2340EB86378E43976ECBA4001310CA0673B86D@atlantis.clb.tcfr.thales>
From: Laure.LEBRUN@fr.thalesgroup.com
To: manet@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:44:35 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
Subject: [manet] XIAN version 1.2 released
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Dear all,

We are glad to inform you that the version 1.2 of XIAN is now available. You
can download it at the project website http://xian.sourceforge.net/

This new release of XIAN offers the following new features:
- Implementation of mechanisms enabling bidirectional exchanges of metrics
between neighbouring nodes =

- Additionnal code example implementing the ETX metric "Expected
Transmission Count" =

- Implementation of the neighboring module maintaining an updated table of
the active neighbours

XIAN (Cross-layer Interface for wireless Ad hoc Networks) is a generic
interface for experimenting cross-layer designs with legacy 802.11
networking cards using the MadWifi driver on Linux plateforms. The code is
freely accessible under the GPL license. =


XIAN can be used as a service by other network layers or system components
to access information about configuration and performance of MAC/PHY layers.
The interface is fully implemented and is available for Linux over the
MadWifi 802.11 driver.

For more information, please refer to our project publications (available at
http://xian.sourceforge.net/docs/docs.html):
Herve Aiache, Vania Conan, Laure Lebrun, Jeremie Leguay, Stephane Rousseau,
Damien Thoumin. =

XIAN Automated Management and Nano-Protocol to Design Cross-Layer Metrics
for Ad hoc Networking. =

IFIP Networking 2008. Singapore - May 2008            =


Contributions to this project are welcome, they can be done in collaboration
with the XIAN core developement team.

Please do not hesitate to send us any comments or feedback.

Best Regards,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------- =

Laure LEBRUN & J=E9r=E9mie LEGUAY
System Engineering and Architectures - TAI Laboratory
THALES Communications =

160 Bd de valmy - BP 82 - 92704 Colombes Cedex France =

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------



_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Tue Mar  4 21:24:36 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06AE3A6D3C;
	Tue,  4 Mar 2008 21:24:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.096
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.659, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id LkuyroBf9iDi; Tue,  4 Mar 2008 21:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8F528C143;
	Tue,  4 Mar 2008 21:24:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B6928C659
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Tue,  4 Mar 2008 21:24:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id dZKSvNFX2WO9 for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue,  4 Mar 2008 21:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.185])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981E428C457
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue,  4 Mar 2008 21:23:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d21so13504868nfb.39
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:23:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	bh=SWDwhSiW9y7SVZ4uzF+neEA52xvxk35KCGjs4xA5Bjg=;
	b=HZJFMwdM0cKPtf4BsviVQRf74MApiBdZ4YRXe2NuBzv3AweNx5TcSgdWVUs6RhzwXIRfKbln2lpo8JmGzeOnMp/Ir14drs4PX1caE6DKq6rniaujuyJGhdyLDiVs81o2XNfgvxnYKYOmlGK7Xy3whsdNOqe7J0J8wQVUqtxI4qQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=Hz20/4acT0/7BWcN/O2UhNPsz+mwNOk31oy6L8ZlVNMXfKn6qjDG5GEAQc0IWXABef0dQe8u2Mh/RluktrIOzdBshHGFpIdgGXga8RTmhodIuv+waIy5/ZuXOVUQzg/uKT72nMnxIFxl/Ri78Pdzj9h2FnFkmeu+qM+X1+fjHJ0=
Received: by 10.78.182.17 with SMTP id e17mr5249836huf.26.1204694624019;
	Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:23:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.78.19.9 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:23:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <374005f30803042123u1fba6cb9qf9b4725be62f94d2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:53:43 +0530
From: "Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
To: manet <manet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

I will continue to update the agenda as we approach the meeting next Monday.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt

If you are a presenter please send me your materials as soon as
possible. I will make the presentations available before the meeting
Monday.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=71

Thank you,
Ian Chakeres

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Ian Chakeres <ian.chakeres@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have posted a preliminary agenda for IETF 71 at
>  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt.
>
>  Please let us know if you there are other items that you'd like discussed.
>
>  Thanks.
>  Ian Chakeres
>
>  Note: Several items (marked TBD) are not confirmed, and they may not
>  make it onto the final agenda given our two hour timeslot.
>
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Thu Mar  6 12:28:25 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B89F3A6F4A;
	Thu,  6 Mar 2008 12:28:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.069
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-3.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RDNS_NONE=0.1,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id NMVPFF-FKaAd; Thu,  6 Mar 2008 12:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B075528C9B7;
	Thu,  6 Mar 2008 12:28:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09C628C9B8
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Thu,  6 Mar 2008 12:28:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id j9rgPV5yyadH for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Thu,  6 Mar 2008 12:28:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF43928C95F
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu,  6 Mar 2008 12:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3])
	by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.8+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id m26KRcY4007959; 
	Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:27:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from sextant [132.250.92.22])
	by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id
	M2008030615273711893 ; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:27:37 -0500
From: "Joe Macker" <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>
To: "'Hokelek, Ibrahim'" <ihokelek@telcordia.com>, <manet@ietf.org>
References: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com><ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719DB1FB3A@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>	<1716228e0803030528l3ca8d42cu15c1ad1104c94d14@mail.gmail.com>
	<A09345776B6C7A4985573569C0F30043197E54D0@rrc-dte-exs01.dte.telcordia.com>
In-Reply-To: <A09345776B6C7A4985573569C0F30043197E54D0@rrc-dte-exs01.dte.telcordia.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:27:33 -0500
Message-ID: <003c01c87fc8$8265de40$87319ac0$@macker@nrl.navy.mil>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ach9MoyXjvZ0DemkQeOdwwe7mxwkZQAIuV+AAJyPpsA=
Content-language: en-us
Cc: "'Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)'" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Since this is proposal is fairly general has it been well vetted with the broader LSRP community?
That is the real proper home for this work if accepted by the community.

How has the presentation,etc gone within rtg wg or others OSPF, e.g.?

As you mention, if vetted, manet may be an additional consideration.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hokelek, Ibrahim
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:47 PM
> To: manet@ietf.org
> Cc: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil
> Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
> 
> Dear manet WG members,
> 
> There is extensive amount of work on the loop detection/avoidance for
> the backbone network. Most of these works assume that link state routing
> protocols (LSRPs) (e.g., OSPF and IS-IS) are in use. Micro-loops can
> form in any stage of LSRPs (e.g., link metric changes) but especially if
> there are link/node failures and hence the topology view of one node
> might be different than others for a certain time period. During a
> topology change, it might take longer for routing protocols to
> convergence to their new routes and this long time may not be tolerated
> by real-time applications such as voice and video. The IP Fast-reroute
> (IPFRR) framework (draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-08.txt) is proposed
> to provide the fast convergence of the underlying routing protocols if
> any topology change occurs (e.g., link/node failures). Micro-loops
> become more serious issue in the IPFRR context since the routes are also
> modified temporarily by the fast reroute process rather than determined
> only by routing protocols.
> 
> As we mentioned in our first e-mail, our proposed mechanism targets the
> backbone networks but is very generic and applicable to any LSRP. We
> would like to get the comments and feedback specifically from the manet
> WG members during our presentation if provided. Once we obtain the
> requirements of the manet LSRPs (e.g., OLSR and OSPF with MANET
> extension), we would like to create a section in our draft to address
> the applicability of our work to manet environment.
> 
> I would like to also point out that due to mobility topology changes
> occur much more frequently in manet environment than the backbone and
> hence multiple simultaneous uncorrelated link failures can be observed
> more likely. One important feature of our draft is to handle multiple
> simultaneous uncorrelated failures. Another important point is that
> LSRPs have certain timers. If these timers are set to small values the
> routing convergence times can be reduced but the signaling overhead will
> significantly increase. We believe that using our mechanism these timers
> can be set to more stable (higher) values without increasing the routing
> convergence times.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Ibrahim Hokelek
> 
> |---------------------------------|
> |  Ibrahim Hokelek                |
> |  Telcordia Technologies, Inc.   |
> |  Piscataway, NJ                 |
> |  Phone: 732-699-3905            |
> |  Fax:   732-336-7013            |
> |---------------------------------|
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Yasunori Owada
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:29 AM
> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> Cc: manet
> Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
> 
> I think we need to discuss this problem.
> We have implemented OLSRv2 that runs as a Linux daemon and also runs on
> QualNet simulator. In our simulation analysis, path looping issue seldom
> appears when using abstructed PHY model, but it surely occurs when
> realistic PHY parameters such as fading and bit error are given, and
> mostly relatively space network topology.
> I think, loop detection/avoidance are also required for the wired
> network, but it is much significant issue for MANET because of  its
> limited wireless bandwidth and its high probability of loop formation
> attributed to  its frequency of topology information change and control
> packet loss ratio.
> I can explain how the loop is formed in OLSR and OLSRv2, that could not
> be solved by additional (interval independent) HELLO message.
> These loop formation is attributed to the topology information
> inconsistency and asynchronous change of routing table. So that we need
> to discuss these issues.
> Thanks,
> --
> Assistant Professor of Natural Hazard and Disaster Recovery, Niigata
> University, Japan.
> Yasunori Owada <owada@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp>
> TEL: +81-25-262-7429
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2008/3/3, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>:
> >
> >  I don't believe this item is appropriate
> >
> >   o Loop Detection/Avoidance Discussion - TBD
> >     - draft-hokelek-rlfap-01.txt
> >
> >  First, the work (from different authors, but with that
> >  title) presented at the last IETF meeting failed to
> >  show any evidence of a problem, as was clear from its
> >  evidently incorrect static results, and had results which
> >  were entirely explicable based on the incorrect implementation
> >  of link quality described in that ID. The results were also
> >  at odds with the rest of the literature.
> >
> >  Second, I've only just skimmed this ID, but as far as I can
> >  see it is not aimed at MANETs, the word "MANET" does not
> >  appear in it and none of the references are to MANET protocols
> >  (but there is at least one to backbone routing).
> >
> >  --
> >  Christopher Dearlove
> >  Technology Leader, Communications Group
> >  Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
> >  BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> >  West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> >  Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124
> >
> >  BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> >  Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
> >  Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> >  Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
> >  Of Ian Chakeres
> >  Sent: 03 March 2008 07:38
> >  To: manet
> >  Subject: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
> >
> >
> >                *** WARNING ***
> >
> >  This mail has originated outside your organization,
> >  either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> >      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> >
> >
> >  I have posted a preliminary agenda for IETF 71 at
> >  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt.
> >
> >  Please let us know if you there are other items that you'd like
> >  discussed.
> >
> >  Thanks.
> >  Ian Chakeres
> >
> >  Note: Several items (marked TBD) are not confirmed, and they may not
> >  make it onto the final agenda given our two hour timeslot.
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  manet mailing list
> >  manet@ietf.org
> >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> >
> >
> >
> > ********************************************************************
> >  This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> >  recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> >  recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> >  You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> >  distribute its contents to any other person.
> >  ********************************************************************
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  manet mailing list
> >  manet@ietf.org
> >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> >
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Fri Mar  7 08:08:00 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C90928C99C;
	Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:08:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.721
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.284, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id EFjvl7sV4EI0; Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8238B3A6855;
	Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:07:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08973A6855
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:07:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id V1ks5+U5NoxZ for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dnsmx2pya.telcordia.com (dnsmx2pya.telcordia.com [128.96.20.32])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318DB3A6859
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rrc-dte-ieg01.cc.telcordia.com (rrc-dte-ieg01.cc.telcordia.com
	[128.96.20.22])
	by dnsmx2pya.telcordia.com (8.11.7+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id m27G7er01266;
	Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:07:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rrc-dte-exbh01.dte.telcordia.com ([128.96.150.31])
	by rrc-dte-ieg01.cc.telcordia.com (SMSSMTP 4.1.9.35) with SMTP id
	M2008030711073707021 ; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:07:37 -0500
Received: from rrc-dte-exs01.dte.telcordia.com ([128.96.150.34]) by
	rrc-dte-exbh01.dte.telcordia.com with Microsoft
	SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:07:37 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:07:37 -0500
Message-ID: <A09345776B6C7A4985573569C0F30043197E54DC@rrc-dte-exs01.dte.telcordia.com>
In-Reply-To: <003c01c87fc8$8265de40$87319ac0$@macker@nrl.navy.mil>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
thread-index: Ach9MoyXjvZ0DemkQeOdwwe7mxwkZQAIuV+AAJyPpsAAJ9S3QA==
References: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com><ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719DB1FB3A@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>	<1716228e0803030528l3ca8d42cu15c1ad1104c94d14@mail.gmail.com>
	<A09345776B6C7A4985573569C0F30043197E54D0@rrc-dte-exs01.dte.telcordia.com>
	<003c01c87fc8$8265de40$87319ac0$@macker@nrl.navy.mil>
From: "Hokelek, Ibrahim" <ihokelek@telcordia.com>
To: "Joe Macker" <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>, <manet@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2008 16:07:37.0736 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[5CD5B880:01C8806D]
Cc: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Joe -

We presented this draft first time at the 69th IETF meeting in the rtg
ipfrr wg. There was good discussion on this topic by the participants.
We left it there with more discussion to be conducted on the mailing
list. At that time, we did not have a working implementation of our
proposal. Since then, we have an implementation of our proposal that
works with Cisco routers (running OSPF) and we plan to also implement
our proposal in open-source xorp routers. We also have results on
coverage of LFAPs when node/link failures occur based on our proposal &
BRITE generated topologies. Our initial results have demonstrated that
small neighborhood size is sufficient for the complete coverage & are
promising. We plan to present these results in the Routing Area Open
Meeting in the coming IETF mtg.

Our proposal considers scenarios of multiple failures occuring
simultaneously which are more likely in a manet setting rather than a
commercial deployment. Hence, the rtg wg chair suggested that we also
contact the manet wg to see if there is any interest in adopting this
proposal within their charter. Our proposal can be implemented either
within the router by modifying the router implementation or as an
adjunct to the router as an agent & there are pro's & con's of either
approach. Hence, we wanted to explore whether we should consider this as
a potential extension to OLSRv2 that is being worked in the MANET WG. We
could present the pro's & con's next week if the group is interested.

Regards,
Ibrahim.


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Macker [mailto:joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:28 PM
To: Hokelek, Ibrahim; manet@ietf.org
Cc: 'Dearlove, Christopher (UK)'
Subject: RE: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda

Since this is proposal is fairly general has it been well vetted with
the broader LSRP community?
That is the real proper home for this work if accepted by the community.

How has the presentation,etc gone within rtg wg or others OSPF, e.g.?

As you mention, if vetted, manet may be an additional consideration.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf

> Of Hokelek, Ibrahim
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:47 PM
> To: manet@ietf.org
> Cc: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil
> Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
> 
> Dear manet WG members,
> 
> There is extensive amount of work on the loop detection/avoidance for 
> the backbone network. Most of these works assume that link state 
> routing protocols (LSRPs) (e.g., OSPF and IS-IS) are in use. 
> Micro-loops can form in any stage of LSRPs (e.g., link metric changes)

> but especially if there are link/node failures and hence the topology 
> view of one node might be different than others for a certain time 
> period. During a topology change, it might take longer for routing 
> protocols to convergence to their new routes and this long time may 
> not be tolerated by real-time applications such as voice and video. 
> The IP Fast-reroute
> (IPFRR) framework (draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-08.txt) is 
> proposed to provide the fast convergence of the underlying routing 
> protocols if any topology change occurs (e.g., link/node failures). 
> Micro-loops become more serious issue in the IPFRR context since the 
> routes are also modified temporarily by the fast reroute process 
> rather than determined only by routing protocols.
> 
> As we mentioned in our first e-mail, our proposed mechanism targets 
> the backbone networks but is very generic and applicable to any LSRP. 
> We would like to get the comments and feedback specifically from the 
> manet WG members during our presentation if provided. Once we obtain 
> the requirements of the manet LSRPs (e.g., OLSR and OSPF with MANET 
> extension), we would like to create a section in our draft to address 
> the applicability of our work to manet environment.
> 
> I would like to also point out that due to mobility topology changes 
> occur much more frequently in manet environment than the backbone and 
> hence multiple simultaneous uncorrelated link failures can be observed

> more likely. One important feature of our draft is to handle multiple 
> simultaneous uncorrelated failures. Another important point is that 
> LSRPs have certain timers. If these timers are set to small values the

> routing convergence times can be reduced but the signaling overhead 
> will significantly increase. We believe that using our mechanism these

> timers can be set to more stable (higher) values without increasing 
> the routing convergence times.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Ibrahim Hokelek
> 
> |---------------------------------|
> |  Ibrahim Hokelek                |
> |  Telcordia Technologies, Inc.   |
> |  Piscataway, NJ                 |
> |  Phone: 732-699-3905            |
> |  Fax:   732-336-7013            |
> |---------------------------------|
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf

> Of Yasunori Owada
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:29 AM
> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> Cc: manet
> Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
> 
> I think we need to discuss this problem.
> We have implemented OLSRv2 that runs as a Linux daemon and also runs 
> on QualNet simulator. In our simulation analysis, path looping issue 
> seldom appears when using abstructed PHY model, but it surely occurs 
> when realistic PHY parameters such as fading and bit error are given, 
> and mostly relatively space network topology.
> I think, loop detection/avoidance are also required for the wired 
> network, but it is much significant issue for MANET because of  its 
> limited wireless bandwidth and its high probability of loop formation 
> attributed to  its frequency of topology information change and 
> control packet loss ratio.
> I can explain how the loop is formed in OLSR and OLSRv2, that could 
> not be solved by additional (interval independent) HELLO message.
> These loop formation is attributed to the topology information 
> inconsistency and asynchronous change of routing table. So that we 
> need to discuss these issues.
> Thanks,
> --
> Assistant Professor of Natural Hazard and Disaster Recovery, Niigata 
> University, Japan.
> Yasunori Owada <owada@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp>
> TEL: +81-25-262-7429
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2008/3/3, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>:
> >
> >  I don't believe this item is appropriate
> >
> >   o Loop Detection/Avoidance Discussion - TBD
> >     - draft-hokelek-rlfap-01.txt
> >
> >  First, the work (from different authors, but with that
> >  title) presented at the last IETF meeting failed to  show any 
> > evidence of a problem, as was clear from its  evidently incorrect 
> > static results, and had results which  were entirely explicable 
> > based on the incorrect implementation  of link quality described in 
> > that ID. The results were also  at odds with the rest of the 
> > literature.
> >
> >  Second, I've only just skimmed this ID, but as far as I can  see it

> > is not aimed at MANETs, the word "MANET" does not  appear in it and 
> > none of the references are to MANET protocols  (but there is at 
> > least one to backbone routing).
> >
> >  --
> >  Christopher Dearlove
> >  Technology Leader, Communications Group  Networks, Security and 
> > Information Systems Department  BAE Systems Advanced Technology 
> > Centre  West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, 
> > UK
> >  Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124
> >
> >  BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> >  Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,  Farnborough Aerospace

> > Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK  Registered in England & 
> > Wales No: 1996687
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
> >  Of Ian Chakeres
> >  Sent: 03 March 2008 07:38
> >  To: manet
> >  Subject: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
> >
> >
> >                *** WARNING ***
> >
> >  This mail has originated outside your organization,  either from an

> > external partner or the Global Internet.
> >      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> >
> >
> >  I have posted a preliminary agenda for IETF 71 at  
> > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt.
> >
> >  Please let us know if you there are other items that you'd like  
> > discussed.
> >
> >  Thanks.
> >  Ian Chakeres
> >
> >  Note: Several items (marked TBD) are not confirmed, and they may 
> > not  make it onto the final agenda given our two hour timeslot.
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  manet mailing list
> >  manet@ietf.org
> >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> >
> >
> >
> > ********************************************************************
> >  This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended  
> > recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended  
> > recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> >  You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or  
> > distribute its contents to any other person.
> >  
> > ********************************************************************
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  manet mailing list
> >  manet@ietf.org
> >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> >
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Fri Mar  7 08:12:31 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A9028C9A2;
	Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:12:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.081
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.644, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id o3XBy7jdn-Op; Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893413A6855;
	Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:12:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E123A6859
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:12:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 0kc-SrratQEN for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com
	[130.76.96.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2DF3A63CA
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri,  7 Mar 2008 08:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6])
	by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with
	ESMTP id m27GC1iw025371
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL);
	Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:12:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id
	m27GC1BN023706; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:12:01 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com
	[130.247.55.84])
	by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id
	m27GC18L023697; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:12:01 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by
	XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:12:01 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:12:00 -0800
Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1029EDEE8@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
thread-index: Ach9AZXM94xB5lk7QtetH6F5MMCwvgDbBxYA
References: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>, "manet" <manet@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2008 16:12:01.0116 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[F9D251C0:01C8806D]
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

When do you want to talk about SEAL? Right after SMF maybe?
Draft is here:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-seal-03.txt

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:ian.chakeres@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:38 PM
>To: manet
>Subject: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
>
>I have posted a preliminary agenda for IETF 71 at
>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt.
>
>Please let us know if you there are other items that you'd 
>like discussed.
>
>Thanks.
>Ian Chakeres
>
>Note: Several items (marked TBD) are not confirmed, and they may not
>make it onto the final agenda given our two hour timeslot.
>_______________________________________________
>manet mailing list
>manet@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Sat Mar  8 06:13:53 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E6028C3D4;
	Sat,  8 Mar 2008 06:13:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.015
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.015 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-1.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RDNS_NONE=0.1,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id eFtJ8EV8O4zb; Sat,  8 Mar 2008 06:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40D128E50C;
	Sat,  8 Mar 2008 05:28:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD2529369A
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Sat,  8 Mar 2008 05:26:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id vIs+8c6LHnUf for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Sat,  8 Mar 2008 05:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECB528D817
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri,  7 Mar 2008 13:01:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3])
	by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.8+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id m27L0vJ7011541; 
	Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:00:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from sextant [132.250.92.22])
	by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id
	M2008030716005619722 ; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:00:56 -0500
From: "Joe Macker" <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>
To: "'Templin, Fred L'" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>,
	"'Ian Chakeres'" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>, "'manet'" <manet@ietf.org>
References: <374005f30803022338w602c570ck1030569a9a48805c@mail.gmail.com>
	<39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1029EDEE8@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1029EDEE8@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:00:51 -0500
Message-ID: <00e101c88096$53bf8810$fb3e9830$@macker@nrl.navy.mil>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ach9AZXM94xB5lk7QtetH6F5MMCwvgDbBxYAAAocGhA=
Content-language: en-us
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

I was going to mention SEAL as one of the likely follow-on efforts in my SMF slides.

-Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:12 AM
> To: Ian Chakeres; manet
> Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
> 
> When do you want to talk about SEAL? Right after SMF maybe?
> Draft is here:
> 
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-seal-03.txt
> 
> Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:ian.chakeres@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:38 PM
> >To: manet
> >Subject: [manet] IETF 71 Preliminary Agenda
> >
> >I have posted a preliminary agenda for IETF 71 at
> >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/manet.txt.
> >
> >Please let us know if you there are other items that you'd
> >like discussed.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >Ian Chakeres
> >
> >Note: Several items (marked TBD) are not confirmed, and they may not
> >make it onto the final agenda given our two hour timeslot.
> >_______________________________________________
> >manet mailing list
> >manet@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> >
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar 10 07:17:45 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131A1293FBB;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id DJ4HU5y3pKTI; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585413A7110;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@ietf.org
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0)
	id E6C0F3A70FE; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20080310140006.E6C0F3A70FE@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: manet@ietf.org
Subject: [manet] I-D Action:draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-12.txt
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org


--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group of the IETF.


	Title           : Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format
	Author(s)       : T. Clausen, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-12.txt
	Pages           : 65
	Date            : 2008-03-10

This document specifies a packet format capable of carrying multiple
messages that may be used by mobile ad hoc network routing and
signaling protocols.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-12.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-12.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org";
	access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2008-03-10065854.I-D@ietf.org>


--NextPart
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--NextPart--


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar 10 09:48:10 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64F43A6E84;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.112
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.112 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=0.487, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 7IL+VFAFTM9j; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4C828C30E;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@ietf.org
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0)
	id 699893A7012; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20080310163003.699893A7012@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: manet@ietf.org
Subject: [manet] I-D Action:draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-06.txt
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org


--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group of the IETF.


	Title           : MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)
	Author(s)       : T. Clausen, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-06.txt
	Pages           : 63
	Date            : 2008-03-10

This document describes a 1-hop and symmetric 2-hop neighborhood
discovery protocol (NHDP) for mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs).

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-06.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-06.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org";
	access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2008-03-10092823.I-D@ietf.org>


--NextPart
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--NextPart--


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar 10 17:05:55 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093AB3A6CA7;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.989
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.356, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
	MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 48N3eGmEsJBo; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0463A6ACD;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FDF3A6C00
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id GMzznpNDdjEV for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C0B3A6B8D
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3])
	by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.8+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id m2B03MDm024153
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:03:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200803110003.m2B03MDm024153@s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil>
Received: (from THEBEBE [132.250.93.60])
	by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id
	M2008031020032532043
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:03:25 -0400
From: "Justin Dean" <jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
To: <manet@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:01:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
Thread-Index: AciDCw1kHrQb/HMbQAKpJMmvf/64cw==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Subject: [manet] Metrics discussion
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1445053168=="
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--===============1445053168==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0037_01C882E9.8680ADB0"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C882E9.8680ADB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would like to have a meeting with interested parties this Wednesday about
metrics.  I would like to keep this discussion scoped to ideas on how to
possibly incorporate metric functionality within the MANET framework.  Some
things to think on which I would like to discuss include:
 
Does it make sense to have metrics share or use a similar space?  Or not?
If so what representations are required for those functionalities?
 
I would like to propose 3 pm on Wednesday.  Please send me an email if you
would like to be there or if that time conflicts with anything.  I will
resend a group email with specifics to those who are interested.
 
Justin

------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C882E9.8680ADB0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16608" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D235225023-10032008><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I =
would like to have=20
a meeting with interested parties this Wednesday about metrics.&nbsp; I =
would=20
like to keep this discussion scoped to ideas on how to possibly =
incorporate=20
metric functionality within the MANET framework.&nbsp; Some things to =
think on=20
which I would like to discuss include:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D235225023-10032008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D235225023-10032008><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Does =
it make sense=20
to have metrics share or use a similar space?&nbsp; Or =
not?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D235225023-10032008><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If so =
what=20
representations are required for those =
functionalities?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D235225023-10032008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D235225023-10032008><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I =
would like to=20
propose 3 pm on Wednesday.&nbsp; Please send me an email if you would =
like to be=20
there or if that time conflicts with anything.&nbsp;&nbsp;I will resend =
a group=20
email with specifics to those who are interested.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D235225023-10032008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D235225023-10032008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Justin</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C882E9.8680ADB0--


--===============1445053168==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--===============1445053168==--



From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Tue Mar 11 07:35:57 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E653A6E12;
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.184
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=0.253, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id bOcrqGBIOlRO; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B9128C47A;
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67CA28C49D
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id eYK5TMmAAZBU for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server9.hosting2go.nl (server9.hosting2go.nl [83.137.192.232])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2FE28C493
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 8262 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2008 15:33:02 +0100
Received: from unknown (HELO M90Teco) (130.129.82.21)
	by server9.hosting2go.nl with SMTP; 11 Mar 2008 15:33:02 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: "'manet'" <manet@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:32:27 +0100
Message-ID: <000601c88384$ceedecc0$6cc9c640$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AciDhLsRmvpaOj4PQAa7aWlgAkYw2Q==
Content-Language: nl
Subject: [manet] NHDP - including all addresses in hello message
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,
More on "MUST include all local interface addresses in the hello message":
Is there a document that explains we really need this? I still have the idea
that it may introduce huge overhead, which can be circumvented in many
cases.
Teco.


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Tue Mar 11 07:46:44 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C543A3A6E3A;
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.957
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.520, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id HBxNrlVhD+Te; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020B23A6E35;
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086653A6E34
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id ryDa9JZf+z+T for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.bae.co.uk (smtp2.bae.co.uk [20.133.0.12])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251D028C4F8
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpb.greenlnk.net (smtpb.greenlnk.net [10.15.160.219])
	by smtp2.bae.co.uk (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id
	m2BEehwt017113 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:40:43 GMT
Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET (glkas0002.greenlnk.net [10.15.184.52])
	by smtpb.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id
	m2BEeh7p010006 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:40:43 GMT
Received: from glkms1100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.108]) by
	glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite;
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:40:43 -0000
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.93]) by
	glkms1100.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); 
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:40:42 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:40:42 -0000
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719DB7C75D@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <000601c88384$ceedecc0$6cc9c640$@nl>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [manet] NHDP - including all addresses in hello message
Thread-Index: AciDhLsRmvpaOj4PQAa7aWlgAkYw2QAAKVkw
References: <000601c88384$ceedecc0$6cc9c640$@nl>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>, "manet" <manet@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2008 14:40:42.0811 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[E22650B0:01C88385]
Subject: Re: [manet] NHDP - including all addresses in hello message
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org


Unfortunately, pressure of work has meant that various
"rationale" material that Thomas and I (at least) have
always wanted to publish, have not made it into print.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Teco Boot
Sent: 11 March 2008 14:32
To: 'manet'
Subject: [manet] NHDP - including all addresses in hello message


               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

Hi,
More on "MUST include all local interface addresses in the hello
message":
Is there a document that explains we really need this? I still have the
idea
that it may introduce huge overhead, which can be circumvented in many
cases.
Teco.


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Tue Mar 11 12:30:46 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D702028C368;
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.078
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.445, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
	MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id BeCEmlibr9Q2; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A623A6A65;
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C543A6A65
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id HRYiqe4F39bK for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879AD3A68A6
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3])
	by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.8+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id m2BJSMRD015732
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:28:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200803111928.m2BJSMRD015732@s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil>
Received: (from THEBEBE [132.250.93.60])
	by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id
	M2008031115282105492
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:28:21 -0400
From: "Justin Dean" <jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
To: <manet@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:26:24 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
Thread-Index: AciDrYamJNq1X+IaThO65mTA8xyT2w==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Subject: [manet] Informal metric discussion
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1696767749=="
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--===============1696767749==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005E_01C8838C.449821A0"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C8838C.449821A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

3:00 pm EST Wednesday seems to work for everyone who I have received emails
from.  I propose to meet in area B of the Franklin hall.  I will be posting
a review of the discussion to the list for those that are not able to be
there.
 
Justin Dean

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C8838C.449821A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16608" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D001082119-11032008>3:00 =
pm EST=20
Wednesday seems to work for everyone who I have received emails =
from.&nbsp; I=20
propose to meet in area B of the Franklin hall.&nbsp; I will be posting =
a review=20
of the discussion to the list for those that are not able to be=20
there.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D001082119-11032008></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D001082119-11032008>Justin =

Dean</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C8838C.449821A0--


--===============1696767749==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--===============1696767749==--



From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Wed Mar 12 13:35:15 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD80C28C73B;
	Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.797
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id r8SVcI03ixHx; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35D63A6B4E;
	Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68783A6A3A
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id oJYj91K5vpJ0 for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-01-bos.mailhop.org (mho-01-bos.mailhop.org [63.208.196.178])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06773A68E4
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.87.62]
	by mho-01-bos.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <t.clausen@computer.org>)
	id 1JZXd7-000KVB-SZ
	for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:32:54 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 130.129.87.62
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
	http://www.mailhop.org/outbound/abuse.html for abuse reporting
	information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+ZzBHOwwwRqKmZ6q8z+1j2
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
References: <20080311200001.50E3328C3D8@core3.amsl.com>
Message-Id: <B5E15933-3EA5-4220-9516-3C9F8214CA34@computer.org>
From: Thomas Clausen <t.clausen@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:33:06 +0100
To: manet manet <manet@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
Subject: [manet] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-dean-manet-metriclv-01.txt
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Justin asked that I forward this to the list, so here goes.

Thomas

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
> Date: March 11, 2008 21:00:01 PM CEST
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-dean-manet-metriclv-01.txt
> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts  
> directories.
>
> 	Title           : Representing metric values in MANETs
> 	Author(s)       : J. Dean
> 	Filename        : draft-dean-manet-metriclv-01.txt
> 	Pages           : 20
> 	Date            : 2008-03-11
>
> This document defines TLVs (type-length-value) structures for
> representing cost values using the generalized MANET packet/message
> format.  A message block TLV structure is defined for representing a
> cost value associated with the local node.  An address block TLV
> structure is defined for representing a cost value associated with
> links or a cost value associated with other nodes.  Both TLV
> structures are defined for use within MANET protocols.
>
> Registry space is created for TLVs which follow this format.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dean-manet-metriclv-01.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-ID: <2008-03-11125836.I-D@ietf.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar 17 23:58:54 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F3128C4CA;
	Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.771
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.771 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id h7R3Yr2hH96s; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7078828C2C7;
	Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE48128C2C7
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id foWHb9vtyOXf for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com (hs-out-0708.google.com [64.233.178.245])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA24628C18B
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by hs-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 4so4389915hsl.5
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.67.17 with SMTP id u17mr776498ybk.14.1205823393946;
	Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.146.1 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a41c6ec10803172356n3e3a27d8j1d2781b8a9fc40a3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:56:33 +0900
From: "Kwangcheol Shin" <kcshin@ec.cse.cau.ac.kr>
To: manet@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [manet] GPSR implemetation
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Dear users

I am trying to learn GlomoSim simulator with position based routing
protocol. I would really appreciate if someone send an implementation
of GPSR for GlomoSim or Qualnet,

Thanks in advance
kwangchoel

Kwangcheol Shin
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineerign
Chung-Ang University, Korea
kcshin@ec.cse.cau.ac.kr
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Wed Mar 19 07:59:49 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC1028C246;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.383
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 9hY5cDbXwBeQ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7AF73A6C06;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29B33A6802
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id T9FoYKaE+xrM for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server9.hosting2go.nl (server9.hosting2go.nl [83.137.192.232])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88CC628C4D0
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19436 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2008 15:56:22 +0100
Received: from unknown (HELO M90Teco) (217.169.232.206)
	by server9.hosting2go.nl with SMTP; 19 Mar 2008 15:56:22 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: "'Christopher Dearlove'" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:55:49 +0100
Message-ID: <001901c889d1$64c0b460$2e421d20$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AciJ0VINQvNQtg3NRsSFkFKnUPyrzw==
Content-Language: nl
Cc: 'manet' <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: [manet]  NHDP - including all addresses in hello message
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Chris,

I grabbed your mail from the archive, some filter stopped direct delivery.

At time of writing RFC2501, usage of Router_ID was suggested:
>   The concept of a "node identifier" (separate and apart from the
>   concept of an "interface identifier") is crucial to supporting the
>   multigraph topology of the routing fabric. It is what *unifies* a set
>   of wireless interfaces and identifies them as belonging to the same
>   mobile platform.  This approach permits maximum flexibility in
>   address assignment.  Node identifiers are used at the IP layer for
>   routing computations.
I am still interested why not taking this option. 
Maybe others have opinions on this?

Regards, Teco

-----Original Message-----

Unfortunately, pressure of work has meant that various
"rationale" material that Thomas and I (at least) have
always wanted to publish, have not made it into print.

Christopher Dearlove

-----Original Message-----
From: manet-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Teco Boot

Hi,
More on "MUST include all local interface addresses in the hello
message":
Is there a document that explains we really need this? I still have the
idea
that it may introduce huge overhead, which can be circumvented in many
cases.
Teco.

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Wed Mar 19 08:59:41 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED583A6F81;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.564
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id mknRNpaW-Oak; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6923A6F24;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373173A6F3A
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id YdV9hLqWe1PX for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net
	(elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6158A3A6E5E
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
	b=MbpYGXhfVdlAr2tHBSioUCY51GiLKOWFUmDV3Ldjb2aVDMoGYicl/X6G1GI+GqTk;
	h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [65.33.46.39] (helo=[192.168.1.6])
	by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa
	(TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67)
	(envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>)
	id 1Jc0fD-0002od-MH; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:57:15 -0400
Message-ID: <47E137DE.3030107@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:57:18 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Perkins Consulting
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
References: <001901c889d1$64c0b460$2e421d20$@nl>
In-Reply-To: <001901c889d1$64c0b460$2e421d20$@nl>
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f5281b83bd092d0b50b2eed5623b76f5e03350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 65.33.46.39
Cc: 'manet' <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] NHDP - including all addresses in hello message
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: charliep@computer.org
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org


Hello Teco,


Teco Boot wrote:
>   
>>   The concept of a "node identifier" (separate and apart from the
>>   concept of an "interface identifier") is crucial to supporting the
>>   multigraph topology of the routing fabric.

I reckon IP already does this to a great extent.

>>  It is what *unifies* a set
>>   of wireless interfaces and identifies them as belonging to the same
>>   mobile platform.

External to the node, what is the downside if this feature is
not available?  In other words, how bad is it if other nodes
remain unaware that two network interfaces belong to the
same node?


>>   This approach permits maximum flexibility in
>>   address assignment.  Node identifiers are used at the IP layer for
>>   routing computations.
>>     
> I am still interested why not taking this option. 
> Maybe others have opinions on this?
>   

What is the assignment authority for these node identifiers?
How is uniqueness guaranteed?


Up until now, I have not felt any lack resulting from AODV's
omission of this feature.  I wouldn't like to add the baggage
unless it paid its freight in signal reduction.  I reckon the
tradeoffs are quite different in manets compared to, say, a
static routing fabric.

I'd be happier if one of the existing addresses (say, the first
one) were pressed into service as a node identifier.  At least
then we wouldn't be making new problems.

Regards,
Charlie P.


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Sun Mar 23 06:39:35 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBE928C373;
	Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.707
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id OC6XXFj+mHee; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7881E3A6C59;
	Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE31128C1AE
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id VXUuEyb7m7cF for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.251])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDED43A6B8E
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so673918and.122
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
	bh=HtcebTCGZlw8R3RwvvDPpQpMGjGRjLAAlB5QGHGEj4Y=;
	b=XBez3IcL/5fkzzok2wQ0InCaNXy/miq5ILsEYOPWbcw0vZLccniZ49PKIxdrlmUOyk6GssfNPG16OYAgljRMDVwnoGwzSnzY2oh9Ovy3uti6T9ny3FcH0geuRu8Ul6EOgtZXYHDHB+ht95n0Eo63u3mWdy7F+Gld75oDbGRsCrI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
	b=XOlOpa6pA93OeI3XbI/La9/wO5weKyuvgVOI/f5jZqQ+psYRqsMfqfV2SArzGxFJWguMUQIxPFG+nnZ0eyiayt7OdfXTNiPHanMyyY5cx4CjRMA0QaGMLq2INkiwJMAu2BdDVbMwN2xn4fYPCQ4KbRRhgNjlXootCUd9Q+EZ7y4=
Received: by 10.100.227.6 with SMTP id z6mr15004819ang.41.1206279417501;
	Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.3.13 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <374005f30803230636t7ffae5a3v6ad09d5c90c2b3aa@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:06:57 +0530
From: "Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
To: manet <manet@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [manet] IETF 71 MANET WG Minutes & Presentations Now Available
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

The meeting minutes and presentations are now available on the IETF
proceedings website. Please review the minutes and let me know if
you'd like anything updated.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=71

I'd like to thank Jerome Haerri for taking such detailed notes during
the IETF 71 MANET meeting.

Ian Chakeres
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Tue Mar 25 02:41:47 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0083A6ED2;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.52
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id cTg1mRN2Bh3G; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8813A6E83;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592BF3A6B22
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 3ZvzWew4nfPG for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.bae.co.uk (smtp1.bae.co.uk [20.133.0.11])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238FC28C3F1
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpc.greenlnk.net (smtpc.greenlnk.net [10.15.160.220])
	by smtp1.bae.co.uk (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id
	m2P9d28o012832 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:39:02 GMT
Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET (glkas0002.greenlnk.net [10.15.184.52])
	by smtpc.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id
	m2P9d2QC009928 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:39:02 GMT
Received: from glkms1101.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.109]) by
	glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:39:02 -0000
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.93]) by
	glkms1101.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); 
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:39:02 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:38:58 -0000
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719DC0EAB9@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <374005f30803230636t7ffae5a3v6ad09d5c90c2b3aa@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [manet] IETF 71 MANET WG Minutes & Presentations Now Available
Thread-Index: AciM6xHpjeTwlFeeS9SfV4HOHjxq9QBcN/Yg
References: <374005f30803230636t7ffae5a3v6ad09d5c90c2b3aa@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: "Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>, "manet" <manet@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2008 09:39:02.0372 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[0F3B0240:01C88E5C]
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 71 MANET WG Minutes & Presentations Now Available
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org


A quick correction, jitter is RFC 5148, not as in the
minutes.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Ian Chakeres
Sent: 23 March 2008 13:37
To: manet
Subject: [manet] IETF 71 MANET WG Minutes & Presentations Now Available


               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

The meeting minutes and presentations are now available on the IETF
proceedings website. Please review the minutes and let me know if
you'd like anything updated.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=71

I'd like to thank Jerome Haerri for taking such detailed notes during
the IETF 71 MANET meeting.

Ian Chakeres
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Tue Mar 25 14:26:44 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D4E3A6D03;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.017
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-1.581, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id bJUaT+AENECX; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA89228C14A;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E8828C10F
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id di-xl4MJCNoz for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kecgate06.infosys.com (kecgate06.progeon.com [61.95.162.82])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB8928C480
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from INDHUBBHS02.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.82]) by
	kecgate06.infosys.com with InterScan Message Security Suite;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:53:49 +0530
Received: from blrkechub03.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.43]) by
	INDHUBBHS02.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 
	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:52:53 +0530
Received: from BLRKECMBX06.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.32]) by
	blrkechub03.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.43]) with mapi; Wed, 26 Mar 2008
	02:52:53 +0530
From: Yuvraj Vedvyas <400686@infosys.com>
To: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:52:51 +0530
Thread-Topic: AODV code
Thread-Index: AciOvmIAMZivWREoScSK/dsASx66jA==
Message-ID: <99472809128628409E9439C5DFD39D61089B53D7C4@BLRKECMBX06.ad.infosys.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2008 21:22:53.0410 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[62E40420:01C88EBE]
Subject: [manet] AODV code
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2070533419=="
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

--===============2070533419==
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_99472809128628409E9439C5DFD39D61089B53D7C4BLRKECMBX06ad_"

--_000_99472809128628409E9439C5DFD39D61089B53D7C4BLRKECMBX06ad_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Hi all
I am using network simulator and have implemented wireless AODV protocol by=
 making a .tcl script.
I am looking for a link from where I can understand the source code of AODV=
 given in ns2.
Thanking you
Yuvraj



**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended=
 solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended=
 recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original=
 message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail=
 or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful.=
 This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable=
 precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may=
 sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your=
 own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves=
 the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or=
 from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may=
 be stored on the Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***
--_000_99472809128628409E9439C5DFD39D61089B53D7C4BLRKECMBX06ad_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=
=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns=
=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=
=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Batang;
	panose-1:2 3 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
	{font-family:PMingLiU;
	panose-1:2 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
	{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
	panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
	{font-family:"\@Batang";
	panose-1:2 3 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span style=
=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Hi all<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span style=
=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I am using network simulator and have implemented=
 wireless AODV
protocol by making a .tcl script.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span style=
=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I am looking for a link from where I can understand the
source code of AODV given in ns2.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span style=
=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Thanking you<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><em><i><font size=3D3 face=3DBatang><span style=
=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Batang'>Yuvraj </span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=
=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

<table><tr><td bgcolor=3D#ffffff><font color=3D#000000>****************=
 CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************<br>
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended=
 solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended=
 recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original=
 message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail=
 or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful.=
 This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable=
 precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may=
 sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your=
 own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves=
 the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or=
 from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may=
 be stored on the Infosys e-mail system.<br>
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***<br>
</font></td></tr></table>
--_000_99472809128628409E9439C5DFD39D61089B53D7C4BLRKECMBX06ad_--


--===============2070533419==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--===============2070533419==--



From mojov@kpnplanet.nl  Wed Mar 26 05:11:24 2008
Return-Path: <mojov@kpnplanet.nl>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5323B3A6B7D;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.752
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[ADVANCE_FEE_2=1.234, AWL=-0.385, BAYES_00=-2.599,
	HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MILLION_USD=1.528, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396,
	RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5,
	RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id J9CgZ3SItcR7; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml11.kpnxchange.com (hpsmtp-eml11.kpnxchange.com [213.75.38.111])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AAC03A6AE7;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml22.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.38.122]) by hpsmtp-eml11.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:59 +0100
Received: from cpbrm-eml20.kpnsp.local ([195.121.247.250]) by hpsmtp-eml22.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:33 +0100
Received: from hpsmtp-eml21.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.53.250]) by cpbrm-eml20.kpnsp.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:33 +0100
Received: from localhost ([10.94.53.250]) by hpsmtp-eml21.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:31 +0100
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C88F3A.16E5AD5A"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: CONTACT MR. BRENT
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:23 +0100
Message-ID: <76F8A6A0FB0FE748BD5DBDBA14F36593A1B4BF@CPEXBE-EML29.kpnsp.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: CONTACT MR. BRENT
Thread-Index: AciPOhSkEM3+CZdDSeegkXYF04QgHw==
From: <mojov@kpnplanet.nl>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2008 12:08:31.0093 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B6AFA50:01C88F3A]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C88F3A.16E5AD5A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=20
=20

I have a business proposal of USD$8Million and 50% (USD$4Million) of =
this sum is at stake for you, if you indulge in this transaction. This =
transaction is legal and totally risk free. For more details, send me an =
email through my personal email address [mr.andersonbrent1@live.com] and =
please include your full name and phone number, so that i can contact =
you immediately. Cheers!
Mr. Anderson M. Brent
Account Officer
+44 7045708770

------_=_NextPart_001_01C88F3A.16E5AD5A
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML dir=3Dltr><HEAD>=0A=
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dunicode">=0A=
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3268" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>=0A=
<BODY>=0A=
<DIV id=3DidOWAReplyText87376 dir=3Dltr>=0A=
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A=
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV>=0A=
<DIV id=3DidSignature18743 dir=3Dltr>=0A=
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2><BR>I have a business =
proposal of USD$8Million and 50% (USD$4Million) of this sum is at stake =
for you, if you indulge in this transaction. This transaction is legal =
and totally risk free. For more details, send me an email through my =
personal email address [mr.andersonbrent1@live.com] and please include =
your full name and phone number, so that i can contact you immediately. =
Cheers!<BR>Mr. Anderson M. Brent<BR>Account Officer<BR>+44 =
7045708770</FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C88F3A.16E5AD5A--



From paans039@planet.nl  Wed Mar 26 17:06:14 2008
Return-Path: <paans039@planet.nl>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73F128C6AF;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.092
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200,
	BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MILLION_USD=1.528,
	MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 5uPJ9kTjWCAC; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml20.kpnxchange.com (hpsmtp-eml20.kpnxchange.com [213.75.38.85])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102B728C16A;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml27.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.38.127]) by hpsmtp-eml20.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:03:48 +0100
Received: from cpbrm-eml18.kpnsp.local ([195.121.247.250]) by hpsmtp-eml27.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:03:23 +0100
Received: from hpsmtp-eml26.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.53.250]) by cpbrm-eml18.kpnsp.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:03:22 +0100
Received: from localhost ([10.94.53.250]) by hpsmtp-eml26.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:03:19 +0100
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C88F9D.ECD05255"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: CONTACT MR. BRENT
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:03:02 +0100
Message-ID: <A056306DF6A1B64D8188051F4D3ACE060A9D6B9B@CPEXBE-EML21.kpnsp.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: CONTACT MR. BRENT
thread-index: AciPner4Vc/qOPtIQyqqUuQC6iInFg==
From: <paans039@planet.nl>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2008 00:03:19.0174 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6B4CA60:01C88F9D]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C88F9D.ECD05255
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=20
=20

I have a business proposal of USD$8Million and 50% (USD$4Million) of =
this sum is at stake for you, if you indulge in this transaction. For =
more details, send me an email through my personal email address =
[mr.andersonbrent1@live.com] and please include your full name and phone =
number, so that i can contact you immediately. Cheers!
Mr. Anderson M. Brent
+44 7045708770

------_=_NextPart_001_01C88F9D.ECD05255
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML dir=3Dltr><HEAD>=0A=
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dunicode">=0A=
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>=0A=
<BODY>=0A=
<DIV id=3DidOWAReplyText1068 dir=3Dltr>=0A=
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A=
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV>=0A=
<DIV id=3DidSignature24565 dir=3Dltr>=0A=
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>=0A=
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2><BR>I have a business =
proposal of USD$8Million and 50% (USD$4Million) of this sum is at stake =
for you, if you indulge in this transaction. For more details, send me =
an email through my personal email address [mr.andersonbrent1@live.com] =
and please include your full name and phone number, so that i can =
contact you immediately. Cheers!<BR>Mr. Anderson M. Brent<BR>+44 =
7045708770</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C88F9D.ECD05255--



From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Thu Mar 27 05:59:10 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820C228C35E;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.796
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id RcP5fCS-JxhF; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809DC28C1C5;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8823A6BDB
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id bZy+MaKEdhM4 for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.174])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5C93A6A48
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so312919uge.46
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
	bh=eXEIHRZnUo1B9zZuvB6SaafrhoZI0CnG1cVcMgsJH1s=;
	b=OAMhhXC++WtRDc0SJOwXwBOIvUAmEUkjuXeEw0K+kJUYH+AeDdCWS4lBX2mbkGrfQwTBOho2RN77+IGzf2zob2pgccJv6+XgLd4XV7LHsjmaVy4pZ5gbh9ps4rEyy2EmqWKcTGvwS4k4f6xVjb6iy5xb0AsFt8MkVDdjEAE1u2A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
	b=akQsHXMQy1/KkuFfPbXMwFcVeliWxBx1a+cCD8Z0S0kB/daheGc5UJhlwYGXRkE3/dH7uw6QPD4NWPIc7o7Eng7Qcb0NL4/v3wo0Dy2k0uDZc9zb3cM5/UBBayx9c6aIY4/OY0JbIRpC/JJQAsUvqvq3weUG3G15yAxTRpcFVhM=
Received: by 10.150.158.8 with SMTP id g8mr790130ybe.25.1206622601680;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.217.12 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f3b30d690803270556u6f86a425h786e7aaca605f0c4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:26:41 +0530
From: "Piyush Wakde" <piyushwakde@gmail.com>
To: manet@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [manet] connectivity in k-connected nodes
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0597982369=="
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

--===============0597982369==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_24528_5338837.1206622601689"

------=_Part_24528_5338837.1206622601689
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello,
I am doing a project in NS2 which involves  identifying  connectivity in
k-connected nodes. Please let me know how to go further.
Thankyou.

------=_Part_24528_5338837.1206622601689
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello,<br>I am doing a project in NS2 which involves&nbsp; identifying&nbsp; connectivity in k-connected nodes. Please let me know how to go further.<br>Thankyou. <br>

------=_Part_24528_5338837.1206622601689--

--===============0597982369==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--===============0597982369==--


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Thu Mar 27 13:02:40 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D6C28C93E;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.977
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id K3Tdg4448i9p; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6277F28C90D;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C174B28C90D
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id bNlMMQhMm09Y for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.184])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF303A6956
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c10so2070637nfd.39
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
	bh=8BXr6va4Ou6fWnsVdP/IDA4IyPiD0/zvjMQ5wkX8aq4=;
	b=HregJoWsUg9MSB0ikg6neP+jUQ2xoipqswfy43LKAn0duinAgoBxuj8Fs3GjHfruWTWMSaRxKmfKA6+RH39fGUYc0eByegCs671zpPhuYEwNSb+uBLHb/N2H6IWNDrgQkfw7pzayOfOxYf/wsGKlY8wX18FljyAnqd2TdnXYJHA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
	b=oXDk+i0WCdcuuUUiS18ErWDcx8+LuhZ7yXEX1wZZdHIamoBSnk4nq9SAtoMHddh6TI/bK6F8cdAhHwKN8l/KzQ16guIaGhxNDfaYu4QD2pkwMoC4/DilotdQnPYKMNKrUbxXA/dZVTkDo52lHwjkQB6Y/NlBIcSY9JnMAfxC/gY=
Received: by 10.78.188.10 with SMTP id l10mr5498899huf.53.1206647961095;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.78.69.9 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <fbc3c90b0803271259o340f004pd3e6fb19bd8ec6b5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:59:21 +0100
From: "Mehdi Nafaa" <mehdi.nafaa@gmail.com>
To: manet@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [manet] Pedestrian mobility modeling in MANETS
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0365702685=="
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

--===============0365702685==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_19625_8449300.1206647961089"

------=_Part_19625_8449300.1206647961089
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi everybody,
I have a question regarding pedestrian mobility modeling in MANETS.
Is there any efficient stochastic representation of any?
Thanks for help.
Mehdi NAFA <nafaa@ensiie.fr>
University of Evry
France

------=_Part_19625_8449300.1206647961089
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi everybody,<br>I have a question regarding pedestrian mobility modeling in MANETS.<br>Is there any efficient stochastic representation of any?<br>Thanks for help.<br><a href="mailto:nafaa@ensiie.fr">Mehdi NAFA</a><br>University of Evry<br>
France<br>

------=_Part_19625_8449300.1206647961089--

--===============0365702685==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--===============0365702685==--


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Thu Mar 27 20:43:20 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668ED3A699D;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.793
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.793 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.356, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id HF83Q+BhBsRF; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C68E3A689C;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21453A689C;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 78SIvHyY4pUe; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU (cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU [171.64.64.27])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17133A6874;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c-71-198-71-178.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([71.198.71.178]
	helo=[192.168.2.105])
	by cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <pal@cs.stanford.edu>)
	id 1Jf5Un-0007B4-9m; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:43:13 -0700
Message-Id: <97E4819D-602B-45ED-97BA-3CA9E130E919@cs.stanford.edu>
From: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
To: roll@ietf.org,
 manet manet <manet@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:43:12 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2)
X-Scan-Signature: 9c8d7c79e82d9ccd3af9a51b4d3246f3
Subject: [manet] Discussion on draft
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

I'd like to start a discussion on draft-levis-roll-overview-protocols.  
In particular, Section 5.8 has a table of several existing protocols  
and their properties. This table is really going to be critical in  
ROLL's assessment of existing technologies and protocols, so we want  
to make sure that

1) It has the relevant data points to compare (protocols/rows)
2) It distills what the important properties are(columns)
3) It accurately captures the properties of the values in question  
(cells are accurate)

Let's start with 1), as it's probably the simplest. Are there any  
protocols that we should be including that aren't there? Trying to  
cover every single minor protocol tweak is a recipe for disaster, but  
protocols that differ significantly from those currently there, either  
in mechanism or in properties, are important to include.

Phil
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Fri Mar 28 08:59:06 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B94B28C790;
	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.382
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id GVdQNhsf1yeq; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A7E3A6D14;
	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135D228C1A3
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id NpWowOOL7LJM for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mnit.ac.in (mnit.ac.in [210.212.97.131])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5819D3A6831
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31719 invoked by uid 118); 28 Mar 2008 21:30:48 -0000
Received: from 127.0.0.1 by mnit.ac.in (envelope-from <pk04ucp@mnit.ac.in>,
	uid 112) with qmail-scanner-1.25st 
	(clamdscan: 0.90.1/6396. spamassassin: 3.1.7-deb. perlscan: 1.25st.  
	Clear:RC:1(127.0.0.1):SA:0(-0.8/3.1):. 
	Processed in 21.124452 secs); 28 Mar 2008 21:30:48 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO 172.16.1.20) (pk04ucp@[127.0.0.1])
	(envelope-sender <pk04ucp@mnit.ac.in>)
	by mnit.ac.in (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
	for <manet@ietf.org>; 28 Mar 2008 21:30:27 -0000
Received: from 172.16.1.10 (proxying for 172.16.1.1)
	(SquirrelMail authenticated user pk04ucp) by 172.16.1.20 with HTTP;
	Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:00:27 +0530 (IST)
Message-ID: <62949.172.16.1.10.1206739827.squirrel@172.16.1.20>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:00:27 +0530 (IST)
From: pk04ucp@mnit.ac.in
To: manet@ietf.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.6 [CVS]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Subject: [manet] ZRP Throughput
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Hello everybody,
  I am doing project in NS-2 related to wireless sensor network simulation
for zrp.I have trace graph but i don't know that how to calculate
throughput in zrp .Please tell me.
 thanks

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar 31 07:32:16 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: manet-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71793A6CCB;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7FE3A6D43
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.15
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id NNSVIMnY8PhF for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5B53A6CBF
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3])
	by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.8+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id m2VEW98V012894
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:32:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from sextant [132.250.92.22])
	by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id
	M2008033110320928606
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:32:09 -0400
From: "Joe Macker" <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>
To: "'manet'" <manet@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:31:53 -0400
Message-ID: <04df01c8933b$f7259cd0$e570d670$@macker@nrl.navy.mil>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AciTO/cEVk3vnZ/wSJyc2YqFKdL5LQ==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: [manet] Consensus on dymo-mib as WG doc
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

All:

There was consensus at the recent WG meeting in Philadelphia that draft-cole-dymo-mib-00.txt was an appropriate WG document.  I
would like to provide a period for anyone on the list that has a different opinion to please post a message.

Dymo is already a WG effort and MIB documents are needed so this seems straightforward.

-Joe  


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar 31 08:05:54 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: manet-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B561D28C4E7;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CDA3A6930;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id Pf9SStabOW4e; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scorpius.cttc.es (scorpius.cttc.es [84.88.62.197])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C8D3A68AB;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from castor.cttc.es (castor.cttc.es [84.88.62.196])
	by scorpius.cttc.es (8.13.8/8.13.5) with ESMTP id m2VAFsvC019631
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT); 
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:15:54 +0200
Received: from CTTCPCMDOHLER (pcmdohler.cttc.es [84.88.61.89])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by castor.cttc.es (8.13.2/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m2VAFsF2012263
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT);
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:16:00 +0200
Message-Id: <200803311016.m2VAFsF2012263@castor.cttc.es>
From: "Mischa Dohler" <mischa.dohler@cttc.es>
To: "'Philip Levis'" <pal@cs.stanford.edu>, <roll@ietf.org>,
	"'manet manet'" <manet@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:14:56 +0200
Organization: CTTC
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AciQhiuB7l706Z4bTqiOtmiFdzpaUgCj/a/g
In-Reply-To: <97E4819D-602B-45ED-97BA-3CA9E130E919@cs.stanford.edu>
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-3.0 (castor.cttc.es [84.88.62.196]);
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:16:00 +0200 (CEST)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 84.88.62.197
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:05:52 -0700
Cc: thomas.watteyne@orange-ftgroup.com
Subject: Re: [manet] [Roll] Discussion on draft
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mischa.dohler@cttc.es
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Dear Phil, dear all,

Sorry to start a new thread but my email does not quite fit into recent
discussions.

I and my colleagues at France Telecom support Phil's initiative of
identifying the right set of protocols. However, personally, I am not quite
sure why only link-state and distance-vector based protocols are listed. 

WSNs not only offer but also require different approaches - this had also
been stated in recent discussions and we would like some canonical versions
of these protocols to feature in the overview draft. 

My colleague Thomas Watteyne (cc'ed) has summarized some approaches based on
"virtual/relative/approximate coordinates" (many terms for the same idea) as
follows:
- First, there is a set of propositions which infer the nodes "approximate
coordinates" from a set of location aware anchor nodes. (Greedy) geographic
routing protocols can then run on top of these coordinates, although the
delivery ratio is rather low.
- "Relative coordinates" can be inferred from a set of location-unaware
anchor nodes. Coordinates are in fact a vector of distances (e.g. in hops)
to these anchors. Protocols such as Vcap (infocom'06) and Gspring (ICNP'07)
function this way. The good news is that delivery ratios on those relative
coordinates are higher than if the same nodes knew their real coordinates
(!). Drawback is that they need some sort of initialization, identification
of the anchor nodes. Also, coordinate refreshing procedures seem not to be
published.
- Recently, the use of completely virtual coordinates has been proposed.
These coordinates are randomly initialized when a node is booted. Whenever a
node sends a message, it updates its virtual coordinate as a function of its
neighbors' ones. A near-greedy geographic routing protocol is then used on
top of these coordinates. Simulation results show that the network converges
to a state where path length in number of hops exceeds the optimal one by a
few percent. 

Whilst these approaches may not be of use for industrial or home automation,
we are pretty sure that they are vital for urban applications as network
lifetimes are significantly increased.

Regards,
Mischa.




-----Original Message-----
From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Philip Levis
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 4:43 AM
To: roll@ietf.org; manet manet
Subject: [Roll] Discussion on draft

I'd like to start a discussion on draft-levis-roll-overview-protocols.  
In particular, Section 5.8 has a table of several existing protocols  
and their properties. This table is really going to be critical in  
ROLL's assessment of existing technologies and protocols, so we want  
to make sure that

1) It has the relevant data points to compare (protocols/rows)
2) It distills what the important properties are(columns)
3) It accurately captures the properties of the values in question  
(cells are accurate)

Let's start with 1), as it's probably the simplest. Are there any  
protocols that we should be including that aren't there? Trying to  
cover every single minor protocol tweak is a recipe for disaster, but  
protocols that differ significantly from those currently there, either  
in mechanism or in properties, are important to include.

Phil
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar 31 09:11:11 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: manet-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8003B3A6D0B;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413A33A6B2D
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id itCZwN7LackC for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aplesnation.dom1.jhuapl.edu (APLesNation.dom1.jhuapl.edu
	[128.244.198.195])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9AC73A6814
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:10:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4FA0A45B21AD65488AFF8D679CF0E09A027FF4BB@aplesnation.dom1.jhuapl.edu>
In-Reply-To: <04df01c8933b$f7259cd0$e570d670$@macker@nrl.navy.mil>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [manet] Consensus on dymo-mib as WG doc
thread-index: AciTO/cEVk3vnZ/wSJyc2YqFKdL5LQADXOkA
References: <04df01c8933b$f7259cd0$e570d670$@macker@nrl.navy.mil>
From: "Cole, Robert G." <Robert.Cole@jhuapl.edu>
To: "Joe Macker" <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>,
	"manet" <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] Consensus on dymo-mib as WG doc
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

 Joe,

One note.  I screwed up the naming of the first draft, which is
draft-cole-dymo-mib-00.txt, so the second draft is also posted but with
the name draft-cole-manet-dymo-mib-00.txt (with 'manet' stuck inside).
Sorry for the confusion.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Joe Macker
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:32 AM
To: 'manet'
Subject: [manet] Consensus on dymo-mib as WG doc

All:

There was consensus at the recent WG meeting in Philadelphia that
draft-cole-dymo-mib-00.txt was an appropriate WG document.  I would like
to provide a period for anyone on the list that has a different opinion
to please post a message.

Dymo is already a WG effort and MIB documents are needed so this seems
straightforward.

-Joe  


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar 31 09:36:19 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: manet-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E8B3A6D03;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3E13A6D03;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.915
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.684, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id xjLlQp854-LL; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU (cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU [171.64.64.27])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D8D3A6E2E;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c-71-198-71-178.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([71.198.71.178]
	helo=[192.168.2.105])
	by cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <pal@cs.stanford.edu>)
	id 1JgMzV-0004wo-43; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:36:13 -0700
Message-Id: <6DBCCFE3-3EE9-43C5-B920-7C213FAC07FD@cs.stanford.edu>
From: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
To: <mischa.dohler@cttc.es>
In-Reply-To: <200803311016.m2VAFsF2012263@castor.cttc.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:36:12 -0700
References: <200803311016.m2VAFsF2012263@castor.cttc.es>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2)
X-Scan-Signature: fb418a055a615a79fddacbea7bf2a8e8
Cc: roll@ietf.org, 'manet manet' <manet@ietf.org>,
	thomas.watteyne@orange-ftgroup.com
Subject: Re: [manet] [Roll] Discussion on draft
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org


On Mar 31, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Mischa Dohler wrote:
> Dear Phil, dear all,
>
> Sorry to start a new thread but my email does not quite fit into  
> recent
> discussions.
>
> I and my colleagues at France Telecom support Phil's initiative of
> identifying the right set of protocols. However, personally, I am  
> not quite
> sure why only link-state and distance-vector based protocols are  
> listed.

Because they are existing IETF protocols with RFCs.

> WSNs not only offer but also require different approaches - this had  
> also
> been stated in recent discussions and we would like some canonical  
> versions
> of these protocols to feature in the overview draft.

The purpose of this draft is to survey IETF protocols, so that we can  
then judge how best to move forward towards defining a protocol for  
WSNs. Its purpose is expressly *not* to survey research, other  
standards body, and custom protocols. That would be part of a next  
step, if the WG reaches consensus that existing solutions are  
insufficient.

>
>
> My colleague Thomas Watteyne (cc'ed) has summarized some approaches  
> based on
> "virtual/relative/approximate coordinates" (many terms for the same  
> idea) as
> follows:
> - First, there is a set of propositions which infer the nodes  
> "approximate
> coordinates" from a set of location aware anchor nodes. (Greedy)  
> geographic
> routing protocols can then run on top of these coordinates, although  
> the
> delivery ratio is rather low.
> - "Relative coordinates" can be inferred from a set of location- 
> unaware
> anchor nodes. Coordinates are in fact a vector of distances (e.g. in  
> hops)
> to these anchors. Protocols such as Vcap (infocom'06) and Gspring  
> (ICNP'07)
> function this way. The good news is that delivery ratios on those  
> relative
> coordinates are higher than if the same nodes knew their real  
> coordinates
> (!). Drawback is that they need some sort of initialization,  
> identification
> of the anchor nodes. Also, coordinate refreshing procedures seem not  
> to be
> published.

All of these results are from high-level simulators which use a unit- 
disk model for radio connectivity. Their claims therefore need to be  
taken with a grain of salt. Among other things, they do not consider  
any kind of temporal dynamics.

There is a long literature of coordinate embedding approaches for  
wireless as well as wired networks. Just in the past few years, before  
the two you cite above, there is GEM (SenSys '03), Vivaldi (SIGCOMM  
'04), and BVR (NSDI '05). When it comes to scalable routing  
approaches, the state of the art in research today is S4 (NSDI '07),  
which uses compact routing techniques to ensure O(sqrt(n)) routing  
state with a maximum routing stretch of 3 and, in simulation and  
simple testbed experiments, an observed average routing stretch of  
1.1. Recent work on compact routing has shown there is a fundamental  
tradeoff between routing state and stretch; while geometric or  
coordinate approaches enable nodes to have O(1) routing state, their  
stretch is unbounded.

Phil
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar 31 12:22:52 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: manet-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DFC3A6835;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765383A6835
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.099
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553,
	RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id vA3V-iHn0nZB for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta2.indiatimes.com (unknown [203.199.93.25])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 981CB3A67F7
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13427 invoked by uid 509); 31 Mar 2008 18:07:34 -0000
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=private; d=indiatimes.com;
	b=VD7tZwARaOFomTI33xyyNzFk3ocDypHLKTBJgi0iXb+emNUVLaldJzwlJkFdwUgU  ;
Received: from 192.168.58.231 by omta2.indiatimes.com (envelope-from
	<romilg@indiatimes.com>, uid 502) with qmail-scanner-1.25st 
	(clamdscan: 0.91.2/4015. spamassassin: 3.2.3. perlscan: 1.25st.  
	Clear:RC:1(192.168.58.231):SA:0(0.0/4.9):. 
	Processed in 0.092885 secs); 31 Mar 2008 18:07:34 -0000
X-Indiatimes-Scanner-Mail-From: romilg@indiatimes.com via omta2.indiatimes.com
X-Indiatimes-Scanner: 1.25st (Clear:RC:1(192.168.58.231):SA:0(0.0/4.9):.
	Processed in 0.092885 secs Process 13417)
Received: from unknown (HELO mb7.indiatimes.com) (192.168.58.231)
	by omta2.indiatimes.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2008 18:07:34 -0000
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:45:23 +0530 (IST)
From: Romil Gupta <romilg@indiatimes.com>
To: manet@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1962696909.29161206987323888.JavaMail.root@mbv7.indiatimes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [127.0.0.1]
Subject: [manet] Query about propogating hello messages to multihops
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org


As a part of the acedemic project I am attempting to send some info throught the network by adding it to the hello messages. the plan I am using involves to propogate hello messages to more than one hop as the first step.

It would be very kind if someone can suggest a descent solution for it.

Thanks in advance.

Have a nice day !!!

!! Romil Gupta !!
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Mon Mar 31 16:04:15 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: manet-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCBF3A6C77;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823F93A6BB9
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 4XbSDinjeEdb for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.227])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012B23A6C5E
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 50so957070wra.13
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	bh=vVvyfz9NkJpOUrqr4TFSWOgzW9Rv12J2trLq00TOoig=;
	b=TZ0FLqBOMlkn3YZlpjDIMX8iVVzmhk83NbPe5g3Q2ZuejgPXyKNwvP3ULTCOAlbbpV0jm+XMPZB6nDQ5uVHYkXvtc7LFwDPdcnN3hmVUDDP33lzbngbw/da5pJqXmc2pMecxN23hEHWpcvz01YClXFZ4Tmxb+tYNRxK3Kw9q8WQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=KNlW+ZOzZRgsoNR+FHoWGr4XOMxQIQ8GPMWYgN1vH0lBkqAwQmBEyEWxwi2+WlC2VtZGGUwrJDN/wkLk2H1EX/DTtSMfgHfaBucGU0DZ7vU7Ob8+OrHhaAhOTX9QgdBdsHEuT3PyIB2QUQj+y2H90/rDTKgpumuyxGotBdMs6t0=
Received: by 10.114.159.1 with SMTP id h1mr11071288wae.147.1207004641005;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.56.9 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a467ca4f0803311604ud8d4284m587462b84989c15c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 00:04:00 +0100
From: "Gustavo Carneiro" <gjcarneiro@gmail.com>
To: "Romil Gupta" <romilg@indiatimes.com>
In-Reply-To: <1962696909.29161206987323888.JavaMail.root@mbv7.indiatimes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1962696909.29161206987323888.JavaMail.root@mbv7.indiatimes.com>
Cc: manet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [manet] Query about propogating hello messages to multihops
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1502902519=="
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1502902519==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_47560_15445849.1207004641000"

------=_Part_47560_15445849.1207004641000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 31/03/2008, Romil Gupta <romilg@indiatimes.com> wrote:
>
>
> As a part of the acedemic project I am attempting to send some info
> throught the network by adding it to the hello messages. the plan I am using
> involves to propogate hello messages to more than one hop as the first step.


What protocol are you using?

Keep in mind that if you make HELLOs propagate beyond a node's immediate
neighbors you will be violating a very basic principle of routing
protocols.  At least in OLSR, HELLO messages are used for neighbor sensing;
if HELLOs propagate more than to the next hop, nodes will start believing
they have neighbors that they don't really have.  That will cause routing to
fail and packets to be dropped.

You should look for other messages to carry your information, like TC or
LSA.

-- 
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
INESC Porto, Telecommunications and Multimedia Unit
"The universe is always one step beyond logic." -- Frank Herbert

------=_Part_47560_15445849.1207004641000
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 31/03/2008, <b class="gmail_sendername">Romil Gupta</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:romilg@indiatimes.com">romilg@indiatimes.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br> As a part of the acedemic project I am attempting to send some info throught the network by adding it to the hello messages. the plan I am using involves to propogate hello messages to more than one hop as the first step.</blockquote>
<div><br>What protocol are you using?<br><br>Keep in mind that if you make HELLOs propagate beyond a node&#39;s immediate neighbors you will be violating a very basic principle of routing protocols.&nbsp; At least in OLSR, HELLO messages are used for neighbor sensing; if HELLOs propagate more than to the next hop, nodes will start believing they have neighbors that they don&#39;t really have.&nbsp; That will cause routing to fail and packets to be dropped.<br>
<br>You should look for other messages to carry your information, like TC or LSA.<br></div></div><br>-- <br>Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro<br>INESC Porto, Telecommunications and Multimedia Unit<br>&quot;The universe is always one step beyond logic.&quot; -- Frank Herbert

------=_Part_47560_15445849.1207004641000--

--===============1502902519==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--===============1502902519==--


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Tue Apr  1 00:06:46 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: manet-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B261E3A6B6A;
	Tue,  1 Apr 2008 00:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2213A684A
	for <manet@core3.amsl.com>; Tue,  1 Apr 2008 00:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.747
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.352, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id cN5tXCylZCrx for <manet@core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue,  1 Apr 2008 00:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta2.indiatimes.com (logs.indiatimes.com [203.199.93.25])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A94903A697B
	for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue,  1 Apr 2008 00:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23085 invoked by uid 509); 1 Apr 2008 06:51:17 -0000
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=private; d=indiatimes.com;
	b=Pfd9BGMtgZigB39J0asLF3AzHtr1hBpyAHTUq6fJ/nA5GZ8yNoEpRw5VlB/D3KGo  ;
Received: from 192.168.58.231 by omta2.indiatimes.com (envelope-from
	<romilg@indiatimes.com>, uid 502) with qmail-scanner-1.25st 
	(clamdscan: 0.91.2/4015. spamassassin: 3.2.3. perlscan: 1.25st.  
	Clear:RC:1(192.168.58.231):SA:0(0.0/4.9):. 
	Processed in 0.116079 secs); 01 Apr 2008 06:51:17 -0000
X-Indiatimes-Scanner-Mail-From: romilg@indiatimes.com via omta2.indiatimes.com
X-Indiatimes-Scanner: 1.25st (Clear:RC:1(192.168.58.231):SA:0(0.0/4.9):.
	Processed in 0.116079 secs Process 23068)
Received: from unknown (HELO mb7.indiatimes.com) (192.168.58.231)
	by omta2.indiatimes.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2008 06:51:17 -0000
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 12:29:10 +0530 (IST)
From: Romil Gupta <romilg@indiatimes.com>
To: Gustavo Carneiro <gjcarneiro@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <458588901.7551207033150383.JavaMail.root@mbv7.indiatimes.com>
In-Reply-To: <a467ca4f0803311604ud8d4284m587462b84989c15c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [127.0.0.1]
Cc: manet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [manet] Query about propogating hello messages to multihops
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

>Subject: Re: [manet] Query about propogating hello messages to multihops

>On 31/03/2008, Romil Gupta <romilg@indiatimes.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As a part of the acedemic project I am attempting to send some info
>> throught the network by adding it to the hello messages. the plan I am using
>>involves to propogate hello messages to more than one hop as the first step.


>What protocol are you using?

>Keep in mind that if you make HELLOs propagate beyond a node's immediate
>neighbors you will be violating a very basic principle of routing
>protocols.  At least in OLSR, HELLO messages are used for neighbor sensing;
>if HELLOs propagate more than to the next hop, nodes will start believing
>they have neighbors that they don't really have.  That will cause routing to
>fail and packets to be dropped.

>You should look for other messages to carry your information, like TC or
>LSA.


Sorry it was my fault !!!

Actually what i meant was to propogate the information to multiple hops using HELLO messages by simply copying some fields from the recieved message onto the transmitted message. The sole intenetion is to propogate some info like trust value or alike calculated by one node to the other nodes in the network. 

As for the basic protocol , I am using the AODV protocol.

Regards !!

---
Romil Gupta

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


From manet-bounces@ietf.org  Tue Apr  1 01:54:49 2008
Return-Path: <manet-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: manet-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-manet-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C12828C2BB;
	Tue,  1 Apr 2008 01:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B82528C1EB;
	Tue,  1 Apr 2008 01:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id pRQLIO2Uvv-n; Tue,  1 Apr 2008 01:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scorpius.cttc.es (scorpius.cttc.es [84.88.62.197])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876A03A6A62;
	Tue,  1 Apr 2008 01:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from castor.cttc.es (castor.cttc.es [84.88.62.196])
	by scorpius.cttc.es (8.13.8/8.13.5) with ESMTP id m318rVTb001099
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT); 
	Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:53:31 +0200
Received: from CTTCPCMDOHLER (pcmdohler.cttc.es [84.88.61.89])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by castor.cttc.es (8.13.2/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m318rbPt000534
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT);
	Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:53:37 +0200
Message-Id: <200804010853.m318rbPt000534@castor.cttc.es>
From: "Mischa Dohler" <mischa.dohler@cttc.es>
To: "'Philip Levis'" <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:52:39 +0200
Organization: CTTC
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
In-Reply-To: <6DBCCFE3-3EE9-43C5-B920-7C213FAC07FD@cs.stanford.edu>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
thread-index: AciTTXx3Jpxq2fIhQkKFtlINUDNPeAAh6GGQ
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-3.0 (castor.cttc.es [84.88.62.196]);
	Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:53:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 84.88.62.197
Cc: roll@ietf.org, 'manet manet' <manet@ietf.org>,
	thomas.watteyne@orange-ftgroup.com
Subject: Re: [manet] [Roll] Discussion on draft
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mischa.dohler@cttc.es
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks  <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>,
	<mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org

Phil: "Its purpose is expressly *not* to survey research, other  
standards body, and custom protocols."

Mischa: Ok, we will kick in later then.


(Phil: "All of these results are from high-level simulators which use a
unit-disk model for radio connectivity. Their claims therefore need to be  
taken with a grain of salt. Among other things, they do not consider  
any kind of temporal dynamics."

Mischa: We are very aware of this and our approaches do not consider unit
disk and also cater for high network dynamicity - and - they work very well.

Phil: "Recent work on compact routing has shown there is a fundamental  
tradeoff between routing state and stretch; while geometric or  
coordinate approaches enable nodes to have O(1) routing state, their  
stretch is unbounded."

Mischa: Ok, thanks for pointing this out.)




-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Levis [mailto:pal@cs.stanford.edu] 
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 6:36 PM
To: mischa.dohler@cttc.es
Cc: roll@ietf.org; 'manet manet'; thomas.watteyne@orange-ftgroup.com
Subject: Re: [Roll] Discussion on draft

On Mar 31, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Mischa Dohler wrote:
> Dear Phil, dear all,
>
> Sorry to start a new thread but my email does not quite fit into  
> recent
> discussions.
>
> I and my colleagues at France Telecom support Phil's initiative of
> identifying the right set of protocols. However, personally, I am  
> not quite
> sure why only link-state and distance-vector based protocols are  
> listed.

Because they are existing IETF protocols with RFCs.

> WSNs not only offer but also require different approaches - this had  
> also
> been stated in recent discussions and we would like some canonical  
> versions
> of these protocols to feature in the overview draft.

The purpose of this draft is to survey IETF protocols, so that we can  
then judge how best to move forward towards defining a protocol for  
WSNs. Its purpose is expressly *not* to survey research, other  
standards body, and custom protocols. That would be part of a next  
step, if the WG reaches consensus that existing solutions are  
insufficient.

>
>
> My colleague Thomas Watteyne (cc'ed) has summarized some approaches  
> based on
> "virtual/relative/approximate coordinates" (many terms for the same  
> idea) as
> follows:
> - First, there is a set of propositions which infer the nodes  
> "approximate
> coordinates" from a set of location aware anchor nodes. (Greedy)  
> geographic
> routing protocols can then run on top of these coordinates, although  
> the
> delivery ratio is rather low.
> - "Relative coordinates" can be inferred from a set of location- 
> unaware
> anchor nodes. Coordinates are in fact a vector of distances (e.g. in  
> hops)
> to these anchors. Protocols such as Vcap (infocom'06) and Gspring  
> (ICNP'07)
> function this way. The good news is that delivery ratios on those  
> relative
> coordinates are higher than if the same nodes knew their real  
> coordinates
> (!). Drawback is that they need some sort of initialization,  
> identification
> of the anchor nodes. Also, coordinate refreshing procedures seem not  
> to be
> published.

All of these results are from high-level simulators which use a unit- 
disk model for radio connectivity. Their claims therefore need to be  
taken with a grain of salt. Among other things, they do not consider  
any kind of temporal dynamics.

There is a long literature of coordinate embedding approaches for  
wireless as well as wired networks. Just in the past few years, before  
the two you cite above, there is GEM (SenSys '03), Vivaldi (SIGCOMM  
'04), and BVR (NSDI '05). When it comes to scalable routing  
approaches, the state of the art in research today is S4 (NSDI '07),  
which uses compact routing techniques to ensure O(sqrt(n)) routing  
state with a maximum routing stretch of 3 and, in simulation and  
simple testbed experiments, an observed average routing stretch of  
1.1. Recent work on compact routing has shown there is a fundamental  
tradeoff between routing state and stretch; while geometric or  
coordinate approaches enable nodes to have O(1) routing state, their  
stretch is unbounded.

Phil

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet