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

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Wed, 22 January 2014 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CC01A03FB for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:48:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OqZC8OBN4b_I for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:47:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x234.google.com (mail-qa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8C71A00E7 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:47:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id j15so509477qaq.25 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:47:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O1zLSFSB8aIXwJWo2AQwj0o0Q4L07lzfxqKHXJB7T4M=; b=BYjugDF7QuQiE44V/uVBGJzaM/Gs5A8bCe+WneSvD+oISuW1U0HqjJDbjPXvNdjwov htI3cOUp6YefB9Tur72t9AFUHV7Wol0G6QUWZX+uf8C4XW2zNLa1hfb/n++/E80IZfLC NLzpX+uCmg+HBMgIVD7sypinVD4/tXSxSIt345NdA0i58Guq4z5gO1Ztm+y0Idepsw3E fzlYjAbf1l1+xjD27pbLJgosnINitYj/JcRoePpn+QrBmkBLR3F4CqXbr6DcYwcFHWub rqhOlIgjiiPsxshiGtPgMvkUyp7TQ88dZPD2FbJvWPLfIAfj5BeFLuVu6HFKj00Ftgzv kxrA==
X-Received: by 10.224.165.133 with SMTP id i5mr2844115qay.75.1390402077593; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:47:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.130.9 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:47:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AAF42E42-6519-43D8-A2DD-55BA00212E10@cisco.com>
References: <3BC2E4AC-CD56-4AEA-AB12-4197ABC3611F@cisco.com> <9B289123-CB0A-4FEA-8F84-08EEE2A6D45C@inf-net.nl> <AAF42E42-6519-43D8-A2DD-55BA00212E10@cisco.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:47:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvurNhUUAnHHEOhZZ7E7joa8EqvE-nA1-SLxi0hDx-6Komg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:53:11 -0800
Cc: "\(manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org\) manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org Group" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] DLEP Capabilities exchange
X-BeenThere: manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:48:00 -0000

Something like a series of (boolean?) flags that tell the other side
of the DLEP session "hey, I can do X!" or "I am Y, please remember
this" ?

Henning Rogge

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
<sratliff@cisco.com> wrote:
> 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 <teco@inf-net.nl>
>  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) <sratliff@cisco.com> 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
>>> manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
> manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg