Re: [manet-dlep-rg] London meet up?

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

My opinion on MAC NAT hack or Dup MAC address: nice but ugly. Breaks 802.1D even more. Let’s not standardize it.
Ronald fixed 802.11D for MadWiFi in Ad Hoc, 4-addr mode. Others use encap with another MAC header. Both are much cleaner.

Or I miss something.

Teco

Op 5 mrt. 2014, om 22:02 heeft Henning Rogge <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:

> One option to allow DLEP with adhoc wifi might be to configure the
> local MAC address of the routers interface towards the DLEP radio with
> the same mac address as the local radio.
> 
> This way you can send them over the wifi link without having to do a
> nasty MAC-NAT style thing.
> 
> It would be a help to be able to reconfigure the MAC on the router
> BEFORE I have to open the TCP session.
> 
> It might work reconfiguring it afterwards (will trigger new ARP/ICMPv6
> requests I think).
> 
> Henning
> 
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> What would that MAC address be used for? I don't understand.
>> 
>> Stan
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Henning Rogge <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> I wonder if we could allow a MAC address data TLV in the multicast
>>> discovery peer offer.
>>> 
>>> It would solve a lot of headaches with DLEP Wifi radios in Adhoc mode.
>>> 
>>> Henning
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Henning,
>>>> 
>>>> That's true. The data items would be in the "Peer Offer" response to the
>>>> Multicasted Discovery. Those data items (IP address and Port) will have to
>>>> move to the discovery message. Also, any a-priori configuration will need to
>>>> be implemented in the router instead of the modem, but that's really an
>>>> "implementation detail".
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Stan
>>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I just looked it up, we have no data items in the UDP discovery broadcast at
>>>> all at the moment.
>>>> 
>>>> Henning
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 5, 2014 5:36 PM, "Rick Taylor" <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you all very much for a very productive meeting this afternoon.  I
>>>>> include a write up of my notes, please correct me if I have missed anything
>>>>> pertinent.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Stan has committed to updating the session initiation description to place
>>>>> the TCP server in the modem, so the initial part of the protocol is:  Modem
>>>>> broadcasts UDP Hello packets containing version, ident and TCP address/port.
>>>>> Router TCP connects, session initiation occurs via the new TCP connection.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Credit windowing will stay in the document, but will be clearly marked as
>>>>> an optional part of the protocol.  There was some concern raised over the
>>>>> clarity of the current text which will need to be address before last call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Vendor extensions will be defined using a new Data Item, containing a OUI
>>>>> (or something from an existing registry) and space for a payload.  There
>>>>> will need to be some guidance verbiage to characterise what is a valid
>>>>> vendor extension and what is not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There was clarification of what both ends of a DLEP session must do on
>>>>> reciept of an unrecognized signal and data item.  For a data item, the
>>>>> receiver MUST ignore the data item, for a signal the recipient MUST send an
>>>>> error status signal and terminate the TCP connection.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There will be no facility in DLEP v1 for vendor extended signals.  Any
>>>>> extra signals will require an uplift of the verion of the protocol and
>>>>> require a new draft.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There will be no such thing as a Peer Characteristic Request.  This will
>>>>> prevent abuse and misuse of the DLEP protocol to act as a configuration
>>>>> mechanism.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There was further discussion concerning multiple QoS flows with seperate
>>>>> metrics across a single link.  This was agreed to be pushed out to another
>>>>> draft after DLEP v1, after some analysis that the proposed approach
>>>>> (heirachial data items) will not break existing DLEP v1 implementations.
>>>>> Stan agreed to double check that the text specified 16bit length values for
>>>>> all TLVs (data and signals).
>>>>> 
>>>>> There was discussion about enumerating error codes, and potential error
>>>>> text.  The status signal MUST include an error code, 0 being success, others
>>>>> to be enumerated after close analysis of the protocol, plus and optional
>>>>> free text field to carry loggable information, capped at 80 bytes, utf8
>>>>> encoded.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There was discussion of confidence values for metrics, and this was
>>>>> rejected as a core DLEP mechanism, and the suggestion was to use an
>>>>> extension data item TLV instead.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In light of achieveing their goal of listing the outstanding points that
>>>>> needed to be reolved before DLEP can make progress to WG last-call, and
>>>>> actually achieving suitable consensus to resolve the outstanding issues to
>>>>> the satisafaction of one of the authors present, the DT decided to not apply
>>>>> for a continuation of their charter, and to instead announce "Mission
>>>>> Complete"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rick Taylor
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg