Re: [manet-dlep-rg] DLEP Capabilities exchange

Teco Boot <> Wed, 22 January 2014 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B9D1A0395 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:22:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b-8dxf2PF4ac for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF391A01A9 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:22:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id m10so4746750eaj.40 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:22:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=WQ9wiGq15yqblc0Bv8fPlzBUcGos9TlzEQEKDgZ1jIA=; b=LfP6zNNuttlQSJw4LpAQechLrLDbaf1b6YD23igkrHKJdpY2/BClxLSKBIFtzqlWoP gfrzCviFrdnlTHZ4yAsH/PkQIxIwcFDKIG1nCncwhoiyoia4NtMRDgWyKcFxnd3k8pKZ 5oq+Ev0frC7GUbKdZkD5TZi5p3rgHB+LEJR4BPeToKpo6HCBWVkB6PW91b1HWlEgVf9U yjH/gqYqUcQsVGPrNlKy0yyv3/DNFHsSqjIBErGnQaud9+lQGQxasPlceWIZ0189+Bxj YI6uOxKSDD6LimHMX1uvyope+njtynh1G3dieH1FRaPIdnv1BpAjeZDJvMDwaBwTbgbJ segQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk64E1mhj8SeZ2ZW85uCV9+yCSw/aZHhjirly4j/GqUwt7MtrvOaYDYeaw5aGkhW0s906yY
X-Received: by with SMTP id cb53mr253166eeb.107.1390407754534; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id w4sm28832964eef.20.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:22:33 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Teco Boot <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:22:31 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Stan Ratliff <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "\(\) Group" <>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] DLEP Capabilities exchange
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DLEP Radio Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:22:38 -0000

OK, the negotiation is another, related topic. Some capabilities can be just advertised, others could indicate support of a DLEP sub-protocol. If both peers advertise the capabilities, the DLEP sub-protocol can start running.

Start using such for the flow control and link characteristics request capabilities, in dlep-06?


Op 22 jan. 2014, om 15:22 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <> het volgende geschreven:

> Teco, 
> Yeah, we're on the same page in that this isn't a negotiation. This is just giving the router and the modem some ways to signal the other that (for lack of a better term) "I'm special in some way" - in my case below, the satellite network is more efficient if the DR is co-located with the NC. This *could* be done with a-priori configuration, but it's easier if the NC announces itself (the NC function can, to an extent, be dynamically assigned). Please notice - I never used the word "negotiation" in the initial email… ;-) Perhaps I should have said a "Capabilities Announcement"? 
> Regards,
> Stan
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Teco Boot <>
> wrote:
>> Poeh, way back struggling with this.
>> Yes, this kind of information exchange is useful. But why would this example need negotiation? Just sending the TLV is OK, and routers can drop it or use it at own willing.
>> For for example a BW allocation sub protocol, I can imagine both modem and router MUST first agree before bothering each other with a "foreign DLEP sub-protocol language". The negotiation SHOULD NOT terminate the DLEP session. And can take place at any time after DLEP session setup.
>> The flow control and link characteristics request capabilities could be negotiated.
>> Teco
>> Op 21 jan. 2014, om 21:18 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <> het volgende geschreven:
>>> Gentlemen, 
>>> Well, sigh…  I've been frankly trying to avoid this, but it's a subject I want to breach - if not for DLEP-05, then maybe for an 06. 
>>> I've been thinking again about some exchange of capabilities. Not for a DLEP session startup, but to cover some specific use cases. The first one I'll throw out is this: 
>>> Consider a deployment using OSPF, over satellite. That OSPF network is defined as a standard broadcast (Ethernet) segment, with a Designated Router (DR) and a Backup DR (BDR). In the satellite implementation I'm considering, it would be a good thing if the DR was co-located with the SatCom "Network Controller". 
>>> So, I'm thinking about a capabilities exchange, where the modem (the satcom terminal) tells the router "I'm the NC". This would, in turn, cause the connected router to be "very willing" (whatever that means) to be the DR in an OSPF election (the next election that occurs on this link)… There would also have to be an "I'm NOT the NC anymore" message that flows from modem to router if/when that function is reassigned in the network. 
>>> I'm sure there are other cases. Let's see if we can make a run at enumerating (and hopefully "generalizing") them.
>>> Regards,
>>> Stan
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet-dlep-rg mailing list