[manet-dlep-rg] TCP clients, servers, and discovery (WAS: Re: notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88)

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <sratliff@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF34711E80F7 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:53:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.461
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.138, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LrgDfEXaYAvn for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:53:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E27A221F9D7A for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:53:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1843; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384451589; x=1385661189; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=IKDmw69CTUDfh29fT65kBAkM+MDhFweIv8DYLcuPPCw=; b=LqABalL8N1hmrqxSOa+YQMdqbhUbwedbhOTKLf/qrqgIbMuJIAVJgrr+ cOyLUfT03r/Y1LatidPCfdOMzwIzLP2npDs0MIcLMkgdTf0n2RlM63TYo mMVa35pIzIlovkU3cYfNJhhxVlcN/9vIYO7hZg2A47XJQbJ2iF3fA4qKw g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAMwNhVKtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABagweBC78ZgSEWdIIlAQEBAwGBCQIBTjIlAgQTh28DCQa3Bw2JP4xtgSmBUIMggREDmBCSDIFqgT6BcTk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,700,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="281871586"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2013 17:53:08 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAEHr8xS031528 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:53:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.200]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:53:07 -0600
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: "DLEP Research Group (manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: TCP clients, servers, and discovery (WAS: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88)
Thread-Index: AQHO4WJgb7E6lbq1xEqVvWEUNTd8Mw==
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:53:07 +0000
Message-ID: <64E876E6-8679-4449-B511-C296E9FE2FC8@cisco.com>
References: <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F307D9192F7@EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl> <CAK=bVC85XAXR3Zkwq+JwELF-dvgrKwbowWCvwvnjeVn7VStnbw@mail.gmail.com> <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F307D9193CD@EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl> <5A8A5085482DA84995F4E70F5093AB50268E6C@XCH-BLV-503.nw.nos.boeing.com> <B2BA430A-F4E6-4DED-A7BB-7282A22802B7@inf-net.nl> <5A8A5085482DA84995F4E70F5093AB50269139@XCH-BLV-503.nw.nos.boeing.com> <DAAF2F4E-8918-4708-8D68-4792A919541B@inf-net.nl> <5A8A5085482DA84995F4E70F5093AB502691C9@XCH-BLV-503.nw.nos.boeing.com> <EBD19831-B87C-4F37-B028-E00687B59FE1@inf-net.nl> <5A8A5085482DA84995F4E70F5093AB5026926A@XCH-BLV-503.nw.nos.boeing.com> <51F083CF-62B8-4858-9C3D-5D48BFE6D8BE@inf-net.nl> <5A8A5085482DA84995F4E70F5093AB50269348@XCH-BLV-503.nw.nos.boeing.com> <57D01331-8D30-4A02-A2BA-B644DBA7A808@inf-net.nl> <5A8A5085482DA84995F4E70F5093AB50269934@XCH-BLV-503.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4840CBE1-5710-4AA1-A6F2-B8A65DE98F25@inf-net.nl> <6b9b8b9f-ad60-4128-88dd-4ecccc91526d@SUCNPTEXC01.COM.A D.UK.DS.CORP> <B177F831FB91F242972D0C35F6A0733106FB0F3F@SUCNPTEXM01.com.ad.uk.ds.corp> <CAM4esxQx4L+=8j_EsKf6zJf=405Wn1fffUEfhRq092N3=72SoQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGnRvuo2iRwFGYB18gjbJnZQhc2rkWhOr1voXE0zkOhGVhq1sQ@mail.gmail.com> <6EB41DAA-4AD6-4E1D-B497-90275673A508@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <6EB41DAA-4AD6-4E1D-B497-90275673A508@inf-net.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.102.41.107]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <E886DB874B4D204E8232B5DBA0E97DF1@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [manet-dlep-rg] TCP clients, servers, and discovery (WAS: Re: notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88)
X-BeenThere: manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DLEP Radio Group <manet-dlep-rg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet-dlep-rg>, <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet-dlep-rg>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg>, <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:53:15 -0000

I thought about not sending this email… perhaps I should have abided that urge, but what-the-heck… ;-) 


On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> wrote:

> 
> Op 14 nov. 2013, om 16:20 heeft Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> I still prefer the UDP peer discovery sent by the radio.
> 
> +1
> Followed by a TCP SYN response sent by router.
> This enables set up of DLEP sessions without the UDP ignition packet. Routers can send the TCP SYN to the modem if they have knowledge on the modem IP address.
> 
> Teco
> 
> 
>> 
>> Henning Rogge
>> 

If this winds up being the path taken, it means that modems are going to wind up juggling UDP and TCP sockets, including a TCP listen() socket. Multi-socket select() dispatch loops; managing listen queue depth, and dealing with non-blocking sockets (so that the select works) are also on the horizon for the modem implementers. And all of this to get a 1-hop discovery mechanism running - I wonder what the path length (libraries INCLUDED) for that is, just to avoid a single line of config (that being, the address and port of the other end of the connection)? 

The alternative I was shooting for, from the modem perspective, was along the lines of: 
1. Open a (blocking? non-blocking? don't care) UDP socket. 
2. Receive the discovery packet. Close that socket? Keep it open? Your call. 
3. Open a TCP socket. Issue connect(), from the info you got (and/or derived) from the discovery packet.
4. Flail away, sending and receiving actual DLEP protocol packets!

I'm beginning to think we need to pop the champagne corks and congratulate ourselves for (partially) designing something no one in their right mind would implement…

Stan