Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-00.txt
sburleig.sb@gmail.com Thu, 10 November 2022 21:48 UTC
Return-Path: <sburleig.sb@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC5CC1527A0 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:48:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rcRTQz3GB0sA for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com (mail-pg1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78DEAC1524B2 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id b62so2870035pgc.0 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:48:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-language:thread-index:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:message-id:date:subject:in-reply-to:references:cc:to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RwF7o+g/mJ2AyM+2akSEnVB8hPZkcIjiAIBSlOabz80=; b=gS7phCt7BZ6OukSVMfr6WNHhw3TimMgYRsjITEBb5I+gVOqo87GPjbm73gENRctdt0 rBhZHIOi8B0tVRLZ8UI3n3pB0tGCM7euAEF6HAsgNtetKtrz25xMNeJH0NBvcnYX5Ij1 AZedudTp5emPlPMPg+dIjSgjU1WXuOHkxofJy8bzzf/3B8/DiUncpUce4X8Tp4C1qbbC u+jXvrL0FfyfF+xUHwPkyGN0Nz07ZyqmAXOP9thSbzvcEuzeMFKRZl8jAokI40URG6Yq p9M46WBnAa6YvNT3c4Tnwqa4I8BRO9O4usKtqZVOzUGViu8T8meFzicE7jMRnwqKBdLZ 2kIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-language:thread-index:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:message-id:date:subject:in-reply-to:references:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RwF7o+g/mJ2AyM+2akSEnVB8hPZkcIjiAIBSlOabz80=; b=X/0A5EklTRRBoDnayMYJsxpjFbD/deV/en3EMcxyyI8ZvaYI/GWH2QbOCxY73otnNp Vy4sbcPbecuqzgFn5UvvcihFQEjuv5QwB2rleb8e6Y4qLprxZafA7pWNQcRBOqsfm4im g3XsI0Q7/1nJn9vHWHa2IIKS6iVT16acE4/kci0i+efit8wPAHAz6MFiDXhcRJm+bGYN A+x3e/L5m5aEhVvJBWBlJu13i8x9iV4Bqk5iqESCqByGd6H24Y734FHLsNQPSO72kreI EJv2wrwuSOiCuw1FlVoFZ7Ucs/UtMdeg1hwhbSkLuD80HXFWY5DjteKEcYbTP2MP1K1B 6HCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0QBGpgvAxwNY8lHCdoYI3tzIMPs938R6v3Pbfc0g3IpRO9bKjG jXrQD7AxJGfin4jfnGBWlNo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5kLugQhQw+hF5jdlAR3l8/cA6ZqTGGdUo2cOSJvkgca6lCUEMTzSWMVyd65JRdoWs+P3s7Bw==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:2901:0:b0:56c:bd6f:764 with SMTP id p1-20020a622901000000b0056cbd6f0764mr3637357pfp.32.1668116910882; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:48:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Nick (cpe-72-134-194-38.natsow.res.rr.com. [72.134.194.38]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b5-20020a170902650500b0017f74cab9eesm158275plk.128.2022.11.10.13.48.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:48:30 -0800 (PST)
From: sburleig.sb@gmail.com
To: scott@solarnetone.org
Cc: 'Rick Taylor' <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu, rick.taylor@ori.co, dtn@ietf.org
References: <166781866257.52170.10627212962929672455@ietfa.amsl.com> <9d40bf4b8427460795554704b9bee182@jhuapl.edu> <f99056da-6711-10f5-79a0-517910cab3ad@solarnetone.org> <04f17f5dba9648e4900a981a3fe75f8c@jhuapl.edu> <013701d8f51c$4620e540$d262afc0$@gmail.com> <80cc2b1e9ac7cd19a488c95a0a56495ea04fb2cf.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <017801d8f51e$53cd0a00$fb671e00$@gmail.com> <4a41d57f-7d1b-372f-516d-3946b524eb49@solarnetone.org>
In-Reply-To: <4a41d57f-7d1b-372f-516d-3946b524eb49@solarnetone.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:48:30 -0800
Message-ID: <006d01d8f54e$2cf35b70$86da1250$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQEaxkYwOLpi1yeeIlFM4beqb9oCFQJ9OIcmALMBo70Bbl5QKQD60sN9AWOJZ48BfsuBNwNgwDcyr1YocbA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/Y9Rw1LY6KC_xcr6P-YCzu3xNemA>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <dtn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtn/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 21:48:32 -0000
Hmmm. In ION, a single node may utilize 3 different CLAs (one for UDP, one for LTP/UDP, one for TCP) concurrently and communicate using 3 different CL protocols. Alternatively you can stand up 3 distinct nodes on one computing device, each of which communicates using a different CL protocol. CLAs (in ION, "inducts" and "outducts") are not named in any syntax that includes the Node ID; only BP endpoints are named in such a syntax, i.e., the ipn-scheme endpoint IDs. A BP node can in concept be implemented as a single process on a given computing device; ION doesn't work that way, though. Every ION node comprises multiple processes: a BP forwarder daemon, a BP clock daemon, at least one CL reception (induct) daemon, at least one CL transmission (outduct) daemon, and usually several more. All of the nodes share concurrent access to a notionally non-volatile "heap" and a single block of "working memory" allocated from system memory; the data structures managed in these media constitute the state of the node. Scott -----Original Message----- From: scott@solarnetone.org <scott@solarnetone.org> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 8:58 AM To: sburleig.sb@gmail.com Cc: 'Rick Taylor' <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>; Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu; rick.taylor@ori.co; dtn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-00.txt On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, sburleig.sb@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, Rick. The definitions of "node" and "BP agent" are in section 3.1. > The observation that BP nodes are functionally analogous to network > interface cards is merely an observation, but I think it's consistent > with -- amplifying -- the third and fourth paragraphs of section 3.2. +1 So under these definitions, my demonstrated implementation is conformant with the proposal, since I am not applying more than one Node ID to any single process, specifically CLA related daemons? This makes it also true that I demonstated 7 nodes, not 5. Each CLA is named with a different NodeID on the ION instance which implements UDP, LTP/UDP, and TCP simultaneously, making that 3 nodes instead of one. Is that correct? ScottJ > > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 7:56 AM > To: Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu; sburleig.sb@gmail.com; > scott@solarnetone.org > Cc: rick.taylor@ori.co; dtn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-00.txt > > Hi Scott, > > That wasn't my reading, but I am often wrong. Do you have a reference to the relevant section(s)? > > Cheers > > Rick > > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 07:51 -0800, sburleig.sb@gmail.com wrote: >> I think RFC 9171 is fairly clear on the definitions of "node" and "BP >> agent". BP nodes are functionally analogous to network interface >> cards; any number of BP nodes can be located on a single computing >> device (whether physical or virtual). >> >> Scott >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Sipos, Brian J. >> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 4:30 AM >> To: scott@solarnetone.org >> Cc: dtn@ietf.org; rick.taylor@ori.co >> Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-00.txt >> >> Scott, >> I do look forward to seeing more detail about use cases involving a >> node with multiple IPN node numbers. >> >> I wonder though if this is a terminology difference/confusion similar >> to how >> IPv4 assigned addresses to a "host" while IPv6 assigns addresses to >> an "interface" with a host being allowed to have any number of >> interfaces. >From my current reading along with this proposed >> additional constraint, each BP Agent (BPA) instance is a "node" with >> a single node number but there could be a larger entity where BPA >> instances can share storage and routing logic to provide bridges >> between those BPAs. Or maybe there needs to be clarification on the >> difference (if there is one) between a "BP Agent" (with a single >> allowed IPN node number and single administrative endpoint) and a "BP >> Node" as something else possibly larger in scope. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: scott@solarnetone.org <scott@solarnetone.org> >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 6:32 PM >>> To: Sipos, Brian J. <Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu> >>> Cc: dtn@ietf.org; rick.taylor@ori.co >>> Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update- >>> 00.txt >>> >>> APL external email warning: Verify sender scott@solarnetone.org >>> before clicking links or attachments >>> >>> Hi Brian, >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2022, Sipos, Brian J. wrote: >>> >>>> Rick, >>>> I think this kind of new constraint on EID locality is very >>>> helpful: >>>>> All 'ipn' scheme URIs for endpoints co-located on a single bundle >>>>> processing node MUST share the same value for the node-nbr >>>>> component. >>> >>> I have to disagree. This severely limits useful, already deployed >>> functionality, as you will see in the wg meeting, and will limit the >>> ability to implement sensible routing practices. The proposal turns >>> every node into an end-user host. >>> >>> Enjoy, >>> Scott >>> >>> >>>> There are many assumptions embedded in current BP implementations >>>> which are based on "what makes sense" rather than documented an >>>> interoperable requirements. >>>> >>>> While that statement constrains half of the problem (a single node >>>> cannot have extra node numbers allocated) there is still a >>>> potential situation where a single "logical node" collection of >>>> EIDs with the same node-nbr is distributed over multiple >>>> entities/agents. For example Entity A is a routing node with EIDs >>>> "ipn:5.0" "ipn:5.2" >>>> allocated, and Entity B is a stub node with EID "ipn:5.1" >>>> allocated >>>> and a forwarding route configured from Entity A. Entity A would >>>> contain the administrative endpoint and route to the outside world, >>>> and Entity B could be a very lightweight implementation that >>>> doesn't need to >>> do any routing (all bundles pass through Entity A). >>>> Is this an allowed behavior? Should it be? >>>> It could be useful in a situation of distributed subsystems (e.g., >>>> a collection of sensors) where the whole system has a Node number >>>> allocated and each subsystem has a single EID allocated. This >>>> allows using "normal" BPA and CLA tools/protocols between the >>>> subsystems, though I suspect that most current implementations >>>> would not allow this >>>> off- >>> the-shelf. >>>> >>>> Another way of putting this similar to a behavioral requirement >>>> is: >>>> after a node receives a bundle destination matching its own node >>>> number, are the only two options for that node to either deliver or >>>> delete the bundle? i.e. it's prohibited from forwarding the bundle >>>> >>>> Thanks for the explanations, >>>> Brian S. >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dtn mailing list >> dtn@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn > > > _______________________________________________ > dtn mailing list > dtn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn >
- [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-00.txt internet-drafts
- Re: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-0… sburleig.sb
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… Sipos, Brian J.
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… scott
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… Jorge Amodio
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… Felix Flentge
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… Rick Taylor
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… Sipos, Brian J.
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… Sipos, Brian J.
- Re: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-0… sburleig.sb
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… sburleig.sb
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… Rick Taylor
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… sburleig.sb
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… scott
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… Sipos, Brian J.
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… scott
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… Jorge Amodio
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… sburleig.sb
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… sburleig.sb
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… scott
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-up… sburleig.sb