Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard
Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Wed, 22 August 2012 21:40 UTC
Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD72421F8672; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.493
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8riT2KpzAkRC; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B9E21F8650; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so80654vbb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HyfWUnV94MEhtbqOhGKq2CKfHq4BZaTfZ+kBlMFlZc8=; b=SP4VCDoyjd0KouKhowMW1MuXUwS77jlh2veNQv4fBYbIjHyUo7mvKXczIX9ZeC4BKY WvAcluNnukv1DzYkwaPod038ecU/q1GeLX+Aiu6ATJY8+5rCMtzEmLTF2QdUeX217N1T 9YyWb4ICydgMls/enb1tHcdHWJb4nuOngWrnzP0IntVZj1C8MoS260Bi0uRO9bNKf5dA Cz+IyhBQ+y1wUHtWSea4ZKRbYJbk+l2Ru9gG+1V+GvufR/N4MLxRF4OiKmmKLBTXp9l8 1uVtIfe1x+n3dRmKDQpzFHRW+48xusdLw+Zu5M7qwcybCTTmRAXxhN5Xrh8FWVBS6d69 26Tg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.178.106 with SMTP id cx10mr8224774vdc.55.1345671647109; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.55.9 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120728232737.23974.14830.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120728232737.23974.14830.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:40:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89O95LVLLHJYepp-qOOD6A3fK8xnQrmnPvGPUHVGeY41Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:40:49 -0000
Reply to your request dated 29/07/2012 Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 22/08/2012 Reviewer Comment AB6: Related to OLSRv2 Interfaces. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -Is NHDP a must for OLSRv2 routing? Comment> The relationship between RFC6130 and the [OLSRv2] was not clear to reviewer (does OLSRv2 depend on NHDP or it may work without it), is it only that Hello messages are defined in RFC6130 and router interfaces. Reviewer may understood that the draft-OLSRv2 may extend to define Hello messages by routers for its non-MANET interfaces. Question> is there a use case where OLSRv2 may work better without NHDP? Section 5.> As for the parameters in [RFC6130], parameters defined in this specification MAY be changed dynamically by a router, and need not be the same on different routers, even in the same MANET, or, for interface parameters, on different interfaces of the same router. Question> but if routers may change parameters individually, what is the consistency between routers, and how they cooperate? Comment> it is recommended to clarify some limits and use case to this issue for stability purposes. Section 5.1> TC messages and HELLO messages [RFC6130] MUST, in a given MANET, both be using the same of either of IP or UDP, in order that it is possible to combine messages of both protocols into the same [RFC5444] packet for transmission. Comment> the words "both protocols" are they refering to IP and UDP or they refer to OLSRv2 and NHDP. It should be clarified even though the intention is NHDP/OLSRv2 (my add *port* to UDP, or replace *protocols* with both names) Question> if there was two different Hellow messages in terms of information, one of OLSRv2 type and the other NHDP type, what will the OLSRv2 router take as valid neighbor information? -OLSRv2 Interfaces' Addresses: Section 10.5.> R_local_iface_addr is an address of the local interface over which an IP packet MUST be sent to reach the destination by the selected path. Section 4.6> The purpose of the Routing Set is to determine and record routes (local interface network address and next hop interface network address) to all possible routable addresses advertised by this protocol, as well as of all destinations that are local, i.e., within one hop, to the router (whether using routable addresses or not). Only symmetric links are used in such routes. Question> From above two sections, are the local interface addresses routable or maybe routable. Are some local interfaces not network addresses? Are all next hop interface addresses routable. Regards AB --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. This message is in compliance with the IETF regulations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 7/29/12, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG > (manet) to consider the following document: > - 'The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2' > <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-22. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. This last call > period has been extended to handle the fact that it spans the IETF-84 > meeting. > > This last call is being re-initiated to include a notice that this document > includes a normative down reference to an Informational RFC: > RFC5148, "Jitter considerations in MANETs". > > Abstract > > This specification describes version 2 of the Optimized Link State > Routing (OLSRv2) protocol for Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs). > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >
- RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (… Abdussalam Baryun
- Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> … Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (… Abdussalam Baryun
- FW: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (… Adrian Farrel