1. Scope and Interconnectivity Considerations for ESS Mesh
11/19/2018
doc.: IEEE /0013r0
January 2004
Scope and Interconnectivity Considerations for ESS Mesh
Narasimha Chari
Malik Audeh
Tropos Networks
San Mateo, CA
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks
Realtek

2. 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

3. 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

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

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

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. January 2004
Our Suggestions
Scope should include definitions and mechanisms to allow internetworking of mesh domains
Clarification of the 4-address format within
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