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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Thu, 06 March 2014 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 6DD551A018A for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 01:18:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HsM2N4xVEbyW for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 01:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f170.google.com (mail-we0-f170.google.com [74.125.82.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0381A0170 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 01:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w61so2740900wes.15 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:18:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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=2vigu0vk6GQhWsqXSBXiGglMUXgLtqwABdz9NPdLmW0=; b=jCrmSNDkXZ2j2CIuV8SzWgsWv7hvS+hv/ydU2VCv5cmkGrtaRROF3Lmu3oJQPDp3Y8 NECQRSXGgaMY/BDkIfXuJc6PW3pHmh8y/JnBm9/k3rrr3G4ediMLbGabRP9u6ZarQ3DP MyVkXqI+aAe+omWABCJuwIn1u4YqH1NO9AHXraGL6EN/Y4QMpLtric4blSxCf2SbgSK3 CUX+0aJ8aDeiSQMQGXqj4Ck6td/izxf5Xv7gSOtQvDNZ7E8MoicUpsstjujAKWAqbNLE UTURYH4pw6FyV/aPpLj2tnBg3W5oviLwJHvhxD8ZCQdyOD8abVoKRXOgywMN0k4vXyOP Krew==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQno5US3GRgXaVLIkHHZOklCRsO5npGAL7yw0aUQ81b8ubH+QIhP59Mqvj1F0Nw+Wy45T4ep
X-Received: by 10.194.200.40 with SMTP id jp8mr8002082wjc.51.1394097511986; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:18:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-a727.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a727.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.167.39]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id az1sm13896389wjb.11.2014.03.06.01.18.30 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CAGnRvuqHknFWoLyv5RjM3OcJ+g4WsRTphMH8d9wLQV+m+J+6uw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:18:29 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2D5195A7-2E4E-430C-9380-4D8926F13E86@inf-net.nl>
References: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA6C34C0@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <480A632F-CB9E-4A62-ACDA-521C1A899049@inf-net.nl> <CAGnRvuqL8z+P5BJP-duyQo2BnTSpnkv7nDnOEdAQ1RfdXu7r+Q@mail.gmail.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA6C4B60@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA6C56BA@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CAGnRvuotok8UC-=i9RU8RvAv_wcv1DE3ubRLqibWeDLF6KRuDA@mail.gmail.com> <FB821471-E223-41BE-8D38-24C54B2B92C5@cisco.com> <CAGnRvupAoaLtvsHh6TLXvxsBnmrLMtPCZ-VKuxR=gVPxnchWDQ@mail.gmail.com> <67373A27-5AB2-47D3-B543-C0EB72D0AD7C@cisco.com> <CAGnRvuqHknFWoLyv5RjM3OcJ+g4WsRTphMH8d9wLQV+m+J+6uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet-dlep-rg/B1iOnzKut53KdWkVC95aUOY2bmE
Cc: "DLEP Research Group, \(manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org\)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>, Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, Stan Ratliff <sratliff@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] London meet up?
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: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:18:39 -0000

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 <hrogge@gmail.com>; 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)
> <sratliff@cisco.com>; wrote:
>> What would that MAC address be used for? I don't understand.
>> 
>> Stan
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>; 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)
>>> <sratliff@cisco.com>; 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 <hrogge@gmail.com>;
>>>> 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" <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>;
>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
> manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg