Re: [manet-dlep-rg] notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

I think we keep Peer Discovery message generation and DLEP session maintenance separate. This keeps state machines less complex, less code, less bugs, increased functionality.

Having multiple DLEP session to same modem is related. If we support it, sending Peer Discovery messages shall not be stopped after first session.

Reason why I need multiple sessions: about half of modems I have to support have multiple ethernet ports. They serve multiple unrelated networks, there is no single connected router. Some modems are 6 digit $, we have to share these expensive assets. And they fully support it;).

Teco


Op 11 nov. 2013, om 16:30 heeft Duke, Martin <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:

> Teco,
> 
> Yes, this point was at the very end. The current spec says that if the router receives a Peer Discovery message it must terminate any existing session with that modem. Clearly this is not acceptable behavior if the modem is continuing to multicast Peer Discovery messages when a peer session exists.
> 
> There are other ways to solve this problem, but the reply I got back was that there was no reason to keep seeking routers once a peer session exists. If there's disagreement on this point I'm happy  to back off the assertion that it's settled.
> 
> Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teco Boot [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:59 PM
> To: Duke, Martin
> Cc: DLEP Research Group ([e-mail])
> Subject: Re: notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88
> 
> Good summary, thanks. Let's only post the summary to the MANET ML.
> Having minutes archived on DLEP-RG ML would be fine, I think.
> 
> On 7: It was not discussed during our meeting, at least not were I was present. And I don't think this is a good idea. It is not needed and blocks more advanced usage of DLEP. Let's not have a restriction in that a router or modem has only a single DLEP peer.
> 
> Teco
> 
> Op 8 nov. 2013, om 21:40 heeft Duke, Martin <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Thanks Ron. That matches the notes I have. I might also add this summary of what I think we agreed on in terms of changing/clarifying the spec, which perhaps is more interesting than the play-by-play:
>> 
>> 1. There are no metric TLVs it is MANDATORY for the Router to process.
>> 2. The modem MUST report MDRT, MDRR, CDRT, and CDRR in the Peer Discovery message, and make a best effort to accurately report these metrics subsequently.
>> 3. The modem and router MUST include DLEP version in Peer Discovery and Peer Offer messages.
>> 4. The modem MUST include a Heartbeat Interval/Threshold TLV in its Peer Discovery messages. It is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED that the Interval be a nonzero value.
>> 5. The modem MUST include all metric TLVs it reports in the Peer Discovery Message to allow the router to initialize its session control block.
>> 6. The Router MUST NOT include metric TLVs in a Link Characteristics Request message that were not in the session's Peer Discovery message.
>> 7. The modem MUST NOT send Peer Discovery messages if it has an existing Peer Session.
>> 8. Both router and modem MUST send a Heartbeat Message to the peer if it has sent no DLEP message in an interval equivalent to the Heartbeat Interval value in the Peer Discovery Message. It MAY send a Heartbeat Message in every instance of the interval regardless of any other DLEP traffic.
>> 9. Both router and modem MUST reset their Heartbeat timer when any DLEP message arrives from the peer.
>> 10. The Heartbeat Interval/Threshold TLV becomes a "Heartbeat Interval TLV." Any DLEP peer is free to set any threshold for terminating the peer session as long as it equals or exceeds two Heartbeat Intervals, unless the Heartbeat Interval is zero.
>> 11. We will combine Expected Forwarding Time and Latency TLVs into a single, well-defined TLV.
>> 12. Delete the Resources TLVs.
>> 13. Keep the RLQ TLV, but Rick and Stan will formulate a stricter definition. There will be no other link quality TLVs (e.g. BER, packet delivery rate, SINR, etc) in the next draft.
>> 14. Stan to add clarifying language on how multicast neighbors work, in line with what he said at the meeting.
>> 
>> As Ron said, the form of the Credits TLVs are unresolved at this moment.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:58 PM
>> To: Ulrich Herberg
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]; Duke, Martin; Teco Boot ([e-mail]); 
>> [e-mail]; Henning Rogge ([e-mail]); 
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88
>> 
>> I leave that up to the DLEP veterans to decide. They may want to 
>> "redact" these notes a bit ;-)
>> 
>> Ronald
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: vrijdag 8 november 2013 2:44
>>> To: Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Teco Boot 
>>> (teco@inf- net.nl); [e-mail]; Henning Rogge 
>>> ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88
>>> 
>>> Thanks. Do you want to send them out to the MANET mailing list?
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't 
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Please find attached my *raw* notes of our meeting on Tuesday.
>>> Disclaimer: Neither completeness nor correctness are guaranteed.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Ronald in 't Velt
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> TNO Technical Sciences
>>>> 
>>>> Network Technology dept.
>>>> ----
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. 
>>>> Indien u niet
>>> de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is 
>>> toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het 
>>> bericht te verwijderen. TNO aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor de 
>>> inhoud van deze e-mail, de wijze waarop u deze gebruikt en voor 
>>> schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. 
>>>> If you
>>> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, 
>>> you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO 
>>> accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner 
>>> in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the 
>>> risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. TNO aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor de inhoud van deze e-mail, de wijze waarop u deze gebruikt en voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.
>> 
>