Scope and Interconnectivity Considerations for ESS Mesh 11/19/2018 doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/0013r0 January 2004 Scope and Interconnectivity Considerations for ESS Mesh Narasimha Chari (chari@tropos.com) Malik Audeh (malik.audeh@tropos.com) Tropos Networks San Mateo, CA Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks Realtek

January 2004 Overview Tropos Networks is supportive of the ESS Mesh Standards effort We highlight the need for standardized interconnectivity We present some observations about the state of mesh networking and on the feasibility of standardizing a routing protocol Lastly, we present comments on the draft PAR/5C and our suggestions for changes to the scope Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

January 2004 Interconnectivity Multiple vendors of mesh networking products already exist in the marketplace, serving different customer needs and providing solutions for different deployment environments Specification of a standard way for mesh products from different vendors to interconnect is likely to fuel large-scale adoption of such systems Interconnectivity across domain boundaries is likely to emerge as an important market requirement Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

Interconnectivity Scenarios - I January 2004 Interconnectivity Scenarios - I Node-level interconnectivity Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

Interconnectivity Scenarios - II January 2004 Interconnectivity Scenarios - II Over-the-wire interconnectivity Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

Interconnectivity Scenarios - III January 2004 Interconnectivity Scenarios - III Interconnectivity across domain boundaries Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

Mesh Networking- A rapidly evolving area January 2004 Mesh Networking- A rapidly evolving area Active area of research and development Academic research – MIT RoofNet, CMU Monarch Commercial innovation Startups – Tropos, Mesh Networks, BelAir, Strix, Firetide, PacketHop, others Established companies – Nortel, Intel, Motorola, others Standards bodies (IETF MANET: AODV, DSR, DSDV, etc.) Multiple approaches exist and more are being actively developed Standardization of a protocol may be premature and may stifle innovation in a rapidly evolving space Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

Multiple Deployment Scenarios January 2004 Multiple Deployment Scenarios Multiple deployment scenarios with differing functional requirements Directional vs omni-directional meshes Indoor vs outdoor Fixed vs mobile Public safety vs ISP vs wireless carriers Domestic vs international markets No one-size-fits-all approach is likely to work Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

Routing Routing is traditionally a Layer 3 function January 2004 Routing Routing is traditionally a Layer 3 function There are good arguments for wireless routing protocols to be radio-aware However, this does not necessarily imply that the protocol needs to be implemented at Layer 2, merely that radio-level information needs to be gathered and leveraged in making the routing decisions 802.11k Task Group activities (Radio Resource Measurement) are a step in the right direction Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

January 2004 Our Suggestions Scope should include definitions and mechanisms to allow internetworking of mesh domains Clarification of the 4-address format within 802.11 Mechanism to identify neighbor nodes in a mesh Mechanism to identify wired gateway nodes Mechanism to share routing information across domain boundaries Scope should explicitly exclude specification of the routing protocol between individual APs in a domain to be used for the reasons cited earlier This will enable faster completion of TG activities Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks