not exactly DTN, but opportunsitic networks, as envisaged in Haggle had pluggable protocols at most layers -
Haggle: Seamless Networking for Mobile Applications https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/haggle-ubicomp2007.pdf DTN is also sometimes interpreted as "Disruption Tolerant Networking", (e.g. not just delay between earth and mars, but phobos or deimos get in the way from time to time, so ingenuity crashes without anyone seeingg (or in the terrestrial case, you'ree train goes into a tunel whether there's no cell phone coverage)... > Sorry, answering myself: speaking for and probably to myself:) > > > On Apr 26, 2021, at 8:29 PM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > >> On Apr 25, 2021, at 11:49 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't > <Ronald.intVelt=40tno...@dmarc.ietf.org > <mailto:Ronald.intVelt=40tno...@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Aaron, > >> I was marveling the news about exploration on Mars this week and this > caused me to wonder if anyone has looked at DTN as a protocol provided by > TAPS. My recollection of DTN is rather rusty and I think it might be an > informative thought experiment for the API. > >> Funny you should mention that. > >> > >> A short while ago I had a thought about a TAPS CLA (Convergence Layer > Adapter, the layer below the Bundle Protocol and above the Transport > Layer) as potentially “one CLA to rule them all”. (It was no more > than that: a passing thought, quickly evaporating). This would be more or > less the complement of your thinking; DTN-over-TAPS instead of DTN as one > of the candidate transports that TAPS might select (if all else fails, > presumably). > >> > >> Throwing this as bait to the DTN WG, since there could be someone > there interested in either thought experiment. (Not sure how much overlap > there is between both communities). > >> > >> --Ronald in ‘t Velt > >> > > > > Sorry for being negative about what clearly is academically-minded > brainstorming… I should be open towards such stuff :-) > > But… aren’t DTN applications special applications, which make > implicit assumptions about the network underneath, i.e. they’re written > particularly for the use case, because they expect… well, massive delay? > > > > I can’t imagine such an application being happy with TAPS swapping in > TCP or even QUIC as a replacement… and conversely, going with Aaron’s > thought model, I can’t imagine a “normal” application benefiting > hugely from DTN? > > > > What am I missing in this picture? > > Perhaps, when delay gets a LOT better, the DTN application might in fact > be happy to run over e.g. TCP or QUIC. Is this a (the only?) use case? > Is it realistic, even? > > Cheers, > Michael > > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > Taps@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps > _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
