<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Having actually done disaster relief on a number of occasions I can assure you that 72 hrs is extremely optimistic for anything beyond simple triage even in first-world situations. Even when the relief has been pre-staged it takes time to clear roads, etc. Helo's have very limited carrying capacity. <br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><br>...arun<br><br><br></span>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Sep 19, 2012, at 4:40 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Sorry I don't believe this. I continue to question everything. <br><br>I don't believe that there is a 72 hours delay. We have helicopters, etc. If there is an <br>unacceptable delay, the right approach is to invest on decreasing this delay because <br>
communication is not the only problem in a disasters scenario. People need food, water, <br>etc.<br><br>Do some meditation and ask yourself the *real reason of these publications*. It took<br>me 5 years to see the naked truth. <br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Jon Crowcroft <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
If you take a little while to read the literature on disasters,<br>
you will know that the typical delay before the emergency services<br>
arrive is approximately 72 hours.<br>
<br>
A ver good text if you want a summary of many<br>
real world disasters is this book<br>
<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paradise-Built-Hell-Extraordinary-Communities/dp/0670021075" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paradise-Built-Hell-Extraordinary-Communities/dp/0670021075</a><br>
<br>
The use of MANET (and in extreme low connectivit cases, DTN)<br>
is better than nothing.<br>
<br>
vehicular use of infrastructure is expensive - car-to-car networks<br>
are clearly a very good way to get high capacity low latency data<br>
_along_ the higheay, especially in rural areas where incentives to<br>
deploy a lot of infrastructure is low right now.<br>
<br>
of course, you are right that the miltary don't tell us anything,<br>
except they funded the Internet, through DARPA (D=defense) and<br>
told Berkeley to release the BSD source code for TCP/IP which led<br>
to a public free, unencombered high quality code base for everyone<br>
to learn from, so yes, as usual you're right and I dont know<br>
anything<br>
<br>
In missive <<a href="mailto:CACQuieYE2E_3dr55Gvi0yuZm+w0CG+KzK4G=1ZXwdcz+wqnkwA@mail.gmail">CACQuieYE2E_3dr55Gvi0yuZm+w0CG+KzK4G=1ZXwdcz+wqnkwA@mail.gmail</a>.<br>
<div><div class="h5">com>, Pars Mutaf typed:<br>
<br>
>><br>
>>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Jon Crowcroft<br>
>><<a href="mailto:Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk">Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>>wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> in a typical disaster scenario, many of whuch have been studied in<br>
>>> great detail, people have to make do with resources they have to<br>
>>> hand<br>
>>><br>
>>> they may be spread over a large area (e.g all of indonesia, japan,<br>
>>> california) and not be prepared with giant ballons as you desribed<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>Preparing the balloons is not the users' task of course.<br>
>><br>
>>Organizations like red cross will prepare them.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> what many DO have is phones and laptops.<br>
>>><br>
>>> manets can be usefully built out of these.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>>MANET may not work for isolated users in a disaster scenario<br>
>>because they are too far away from the rest of the network.<br>
>><br>
>>So MANET is not only useless, it has a very low probability to work.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> in a military scenario i menion, your giant ballon idea is a great<br>
>>> target for the other side<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>I personally do not argue for the army.. This is not really research,<br>
>>because they do obscure things that we do not even know. They can just<br>
>>use the most expensive satellite phones. They do not care.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> in the vehicular scenario i menion, a giant ballon would be a big<br>
>>> drag, especially when you go through tunnels and under bridges.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>Vehicular networks are *unnecessarily dangerous*. Just use the<br>
>>infrastructure<br>
>>network.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> your move, sunshine.<br>
>>><br>
>>> In missive <<a href="mailto:CACQuieY3JBSFUvL_ugse4VRhT4xofOHyZZdvRHNdt+JzTx6F5g@mail.gmail">CACQuieY3JBSFUvL_ugse4VRhT4xofOHyZZdvRHNdt+JzTx6F5g@mail.gmail</a>.<br>
>>> com>, Pars Mutaf typed:<br>
>>><br>
>>> >>--20cf307f39aa2712b204ca091b8d<br>
>>> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >>You do not question enough Jon. See:<br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >><a href="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12602.html" target="_blank">http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12602.html</a><br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jon Crowcroft<br>
>>> >><<a href="mailto:jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk">jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>>wrote:<br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >>> Take the MANET example, sure. Many use cases exist since ARPA Packet<br>
>>> radio<br>
>>> >>> days. Battlefield networks, disaster recovery networks, vehicular<br>
>>> >>> networks...some actually in use ad deployed.<br>
>>> >>><br>
>>> >>> The internet isn't for just one <a href="http://thing.it/" target="_blank">thing.it</a> is, by definition, for<br>
>>> anything<br>
>>> >>> we can imagine and realize...it is the union of all communications,<br>
>>> not the<br>
>>> >>> intersection of one notion with one technology.<br>
>>> >>> On 18 Sep 2012 17:48, "Pars Mutaf" <<a href="mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.com">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> >>><br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Jon Crowcroft <<br>
>>> >>>> <a href="mailto:Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk">Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>>> this is what we used to talk about as the<br>
>>> >>>>> "my problem is too hard even for you" poser syndrome<br>
>>> >>>>><br>
>>> >>>>> basically, whenever you offer a workable solution,<br>
>>> >>>>> the poser (of the problem) changes the<br>
>>> >>>>> problem (or the assumptions)<br>
>>> >>>>><br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>> No I didn't change the problem:<br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>> What do we want for the Internet? Did we really ask this question?<br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>> Take MANET for example, they did not ask themselves what it is used<br>
>>> for.<br>
>>> >>>> They cannot explain.<br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>> I would start a new thread "What do we want for the Internet" but I<br>
>>> am<br>
>>> >>>> not sure if I should do this.<br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>> Cheers,<br>
>>> >>>> Pars<br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>>><br>
>>> >>>>> one of the nice things about IP (and the E2E argument(s))<br>
>>> >>>>> is that it is really hard to change the problem it solves<br>
>>> >>>>> in a way it still doesn't solve, whichever version you choose<br>
>>> >>>>> (well, ok, maybe not IPv5:)<br>
>>> >>>>><br>
>>> >>>>> In missive <<a href="mailto:50589DCC.2030808@dcrocker.net">50589DCC.2030808@dcrocker.net</a>>, Dave Crocker typed:<br>
>>> >>>>><br>
>>> >>>>> >><br>
>>> >>>>> >>On 9/18/2012 3:35 AM, Jon Crowcroft wrote:<br>
>>> >>>>> >>> In missive <<br>
>>> >>>>> <a href="mailto:CACQuiebE-sXDZD-xxaeC2iWfM58iDwO%2BV2XV1tFcP5PgT%2BVq2A@mail.gmail.com">CACQuiebE-sXDZD-xxaeC2iWfM58iDwO+V2XV1tFcP5PgT+Vq2A@mail.gmail.com</a>>,<br>
>>> Par<br>
>>> >>>>> >>> s Mutaf typed:<br>
>>> >>>>> >>><br>
>>> >>>>> >>> >>> I encourage you to read the relevant prior work (many<br>
>>> >>>>> pointers were given)<br>
>>> >>>>> >>> >>Only 1 pointer was given (by Jon Crowcroft), it is not<br>
>>> relevant.<br>
>>> >>>>> >>><br>
>>> >>>>> >>> it is exactly relevant.<br>
>>> >>>>> >><br>
>>> >>>>> >><br>
>>> >>>>> >>in the broader sense of whether this thread has been, or has any<br>
>>> hope<br>
>>> >>>>> of<br>
>>> >>>>> >>being, constructive, it was not relevant...<br>
>>> >>>>> >><br>
>>> >>>>> >>d/<br>
>>> >>>>> >><br>
>>> >>>>> >>--<br>
>>> >>>>> >> Dave Crocker<br>
>>> >>>>> >> Brandenburg InternetWorking<br>
>>> >>>>> >> <a href="http://bbiw.net/" target="_blank">bbiw.net</a><br>
>>> >>>>><br>
>>> >>>>> cheers<br>
>>> >>>>><br>
>>> >>>>> jon<br>
>>> >>>>><br>
>>> >>>>><br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>> --<br>
>>> >>>> <a href="http://www.content-based-science.org/" target="_blank">http://www.content-based-science.org</a><br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >>>><br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >>--<br>
>>> >><a href="http://www.content-based-science.org/" target="_blank">http://www.content-based-science.org</a><br>
>>> >><br>
></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.content-based-science.org/" target="_blank">http://www.content-based-science.org</a><br><br>
</blockquote></div><br></body></html>