Re: the two other drafts similar to raoptions draft (Was: 6man IETF85 Call for agenda items)

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 28 November 2012 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB84021F858B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:40:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 XXE+Ow79h0XO for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A9721F8588 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:40:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id qASAe2PK006207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:40:02 +0100
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qASAe2HV015298; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:40:02 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id qASAdv9h014478; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:40:01 +0100
Message-ID: <50B5E9FD.4070107@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:39:57 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Romain KUNTZ <r.kuntz@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: the two other drafts similar to raoptions draft (Was: 6man IETF85 Call for agenda items)
References: <DF1D8F4D-B934-48D9-940D-EB862FFE0BD7@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcf-OEJmtS3ELV-YpJicT9kj9srrfR=SEFswAAYsYdT-ng@mail.gmail.com> <50980978.9080505@gmail.com> <C587FBB6-24B0-4CEC-B9B2-C247D93FFB5F@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C587FBB6-24B0-4CEC-B9B2-C247D93FFB5F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:40:05 -0000

Le 10/11/2012 15:09, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
> Hello Alexandru,
>
>> From what I understand, draft-sarikaya is for hosts only while
>> draft-jhee and draft-petrescu are for routers.
>
> I'd have a question regarding exchanging MNP reachability between
> routers: wouldn't it be the job of a routing protocol instead? Any
> reasons why extending ND instead of using e.g. a MANET-type of
> protocol for such scenarios?

I think routing protocols which support some form of dynamic behaviour
(nodes moving around) may be adequate to some very complicated vehicular
communications scenarios.

But ones considered here: single-hop LV to IV communications may not
take much advantage of the loop avoidance shortest path reliable route
buildup which such protocols typically provide.

The protocols considered here (ND, DHCP) as alternatives to
MANET-type of routing protocols have this feature of working closely
with address auto-configuration which is highly needed, whereas
MANET-type protocols do not consider address/prefix auto-configuration
as important requirements.

The ND and DHCP protocols have aspects which are needed in a fast moving
highly dynamic vehicular environment.  For example this RS optionality:
an RA may be broadcasted periodically thus speeding up autoconf and
route exchange, whereas same is not clear about AODV's RREP.

Comparing AODV one also sees this AODV need of sequence numbers which is
good in general cases (several hops) and reliability needs.  This is
absent from ND and works ok on a single hop.

Then, each other MANET protocols is different... not sure which should I
look at more closely.

What do you think?

Yours,

Alex

>
> Regards, Romain
>
> On Nov 5, 2012, at 19:46 , Alexandru Petrescu
> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> HEllo Behcet,
>>
>> I pick on this email to reply.
>>
>> You presented today draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-01 in 6man.
>>
>> There are these other two drafts which do practically the same
>> thing: route exchange using ND.
>>
>> draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00.txt
>> draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-02.txt
>>
>> These latter two are considered in settings for vehicular
>> environments.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> Le 24/10/2012 21:19, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
>>> Hi Bob,
>>>
>>> I would like to request a slot to present: my draft on IPv6 RA
>>> Options for Multiple Interface Next Hop Routes at
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-01
>>>
>>> and also IPv6 RA Options for Translation Multicast Prefixes at
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-softwire-6man-raoptions-00.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Regards,
>>>
>>> Behcet
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Bob Hinden
>>> <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 6MAN has a 2 1/2 hour slot allocated for Atlanta:
>>>>
>>>> 6man Session 1 (2:30:00) 5 November 2012 Monday, Morning
>>>> Session I 0900-1130 Room Name: Salon D
>>>>
>>>> [Note the date and time might change]
>>>>
>>>> If you have a draft you would like to discuss, please send
>>>> your request for agenda time to the 6man chairs.  Please
>>>> include in the request, the title and file name of the draft,
>>>> the speakers name (and email), and how much time you need.
>>>>
>>>> We will prioritise drafts that are working group items, drafts
>>>>  that have been actively discussed on the list, and other
>>>> individual submissions in that order.
>>>>
>>>> Please have agenda items to us by 15 October 2012 and also note
>>>> the following deadlines for IETF85:
>>>>
>>>> 2012-10-15 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial
>>>> document (-00) submission by UTC 24:00 2012-10-22 (Monday):
>>>> Internet Draft final submission cut-off by UTC 24:00
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Bob & Ole
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>> ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>