IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] [manet] SMF and intarea-ipv4-id-update

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 30 March 2011 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: int-area@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A769C3A6A1C; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DYbU0Uk1cy96; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9B33A67D4; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so994530bwz.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.154.88 with SMTP id n24mr1078506bkw.38.1301488483926; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-14b8.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-14b8.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.20.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z18sm38393bkf.8.2011.03.30.05.34.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4D932043.2040006@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:34:40 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BB69254A-3D6D-46CD-B7EC-8117E5FC2237@inf-net.nl>
References: <DEC49BE6-4A03-4A6C-B50E-35CA8794E4E5@inf-net.nl><4D9317FB.6060109@isi.edu> <AE85A629-2790-4060-AEF7-290FC295B741@inf-net.nl> <4D932043.2040006@earthlink.net>
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>, int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [manet] SMF and intarea-ipv4-id-update
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:33:11 -0000

There are other ideas around, that could be applicable in MANETs.
You could check draft-briscoe-intarea-ipv4-id-reuse

Teco

Op 30 mrt 2011, om 14:21 heeft Charles E. Perkins het volgende geschreven:

> 
> Hello Teco,
> 
> Is it possible that the SMF usage is not vulnerable to
> the pitfalls noted in the intarea draft?  Usually we
> don't picture NAT boxes in the MANET routing paths...
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
> On 3/30/2011 5:01 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>> 
>> The current text in intarea-ipv4-id-update is "no current deployments
>> are known". I read this as a statement in general. Then, it is not correct.
>> I am fine with discouragement of usage of systems that use IP_ID for DPD,
>> but such systems are around.
>> 
>> Teco
>> 
>> 
>> Op 30 mrt 2011, om 13:46 heeft Joe Touch het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Hi, Teco,
>>> 
>>> On 3/30/2011 4:29 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
>>>> Sorry for x-posting. But there is a conflict in:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-smf
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update
>>>> 
>>>> SMF has a duplicate packet detection function based on the IPv4
>>>> ID field. So text in ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update section 4
>>>> is not correct, in that there would be no deployments for such.
>>> 
>>> SMF is experimental. When we talk about deployments of duplicate detection, we're focused on standards-based systems.
>>> 
>>> Note that ipv4-id-update is standards-track.
>>> 
>>>> That said, SMF deployment with IPv4 DPD on IP-ID would be limited.
>>>> 
>>>> What to do?
>>> 
>>> IMO, recommend H-DPD and change the discussion to explain why the ID shouldn't be used for DPD (the text is basically already there - it mentions the idea, but then explains that it's not likely to work anyway).
>>> 
>>> Use of the IP ID for this purpose is problematic for a variety of reasons, which is why ipv4-id-update deprecates use of that field for that purpose.
>>> 
>>> Joe
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email