Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Session iniation and discovery

Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com> Wed, 04 December 2013 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@googlemail.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 7A07F1ADFBB for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:25:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 3xS5l32LUB7F for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:24:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E39A1A16F0 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:24:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id w5so6988464qac.14 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 11:24:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9SRWbXC6bJwUTLnlhtk2Sk5szyc1WfsX+e+ueWGmid0=; b=I2WT2fa3/3gq0sAK6bv5MpJ08yS8XdkamIDoNWFiRuaFrE4Qw9QyZgbAKoY8Yz/uIr 5MlgPaTpHyz+w/VUvafK83eKzzOxi7hV9ObUD5z2WOvxk6E+1YLb3r9XkZGDMh1PMz/Y U5rWCnlSLha/4jFOBQ3Kz24JuRCpvSl7aD5DWpaM2bg8I8mIQ5KpJ58xWCjFGoN8HPlc uhaJbv4XBJZ+fYO8fQXIt3thSJyidSO/mGyqdDI5wWnDeCbM/H0B7cHr9VjeHx1U5LLX O9k0JUTxUzFHlHvcnDkYhYOPVavbWG1xf1UUP97hrkUQgMkUEeqeBeZ+f4GkD8tTIab+ MqJw==
X-Received: by 10.49.35.66 with SMTP id f2mr18055018qej.8.1386185094899; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 11:24:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.12.11 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:24:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <68236867-CEE0-44F3-A98E-70477E61C882@cisco.com>
References: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA5B5504@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA5B554A@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <3C3C98E5-9D89-4727-B411-E0D6358E9485@inf-net.nl> <CAM4esxSZZQX-E6tQv1b9_NBrsa272EgxCbSK_zjRd=GO6LhOvQ@mail.gmail.com> <68236867-CEE0-44F3-A98E-70477E61C882@cisco.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:24:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvupm0HcGFRBSedy_T8Mkg4xUETAt3bUD6Mmb5DqkryqNXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org Group, \(manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org\)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>, Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Session iniation and discovery
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, 04 Dec 2013 19:25:00 -0000

Looking forward to it Stan. :)

Henning Rogge

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
<sratliff@cisco.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> Great. DLEP document is in-flight. I've had some set-backs recently - had to
> have some outpatient surgery on Monday (that was fun… NOT!), so it's taking
> longer than I had anticipated. But look for an updated DLEP in your inboxes
> soon…
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm late but I endorse what Rick and Stan came up with.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> wrote:
>>
>> +1 judgement as Stan.
>>
>> You know my preference: make radio the TCP server.
>>
>> Op 22 nov. 2013, om 17:58 heeft Rick Taylor
>> <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> > Extra note:
>> >
>> > d) The IANA assigned port for DLEP is used for both multicast UDP and
>> > TCP.  It is the same port number.
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: manet-dlep-rg [manet-dlep-rg-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Rick
>> > Taylor [rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com]
>> > Sent: 22 November 2013 16:57
>> > To: manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org Group, (manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org)
>> > Subject: [manet-dlep-rg] Session iniation and discovery
>> >
>> > Gents,
>> >
>> > Am I right in thinking we are achieving some kind of consensus on
>> > session initiation and discovery?  My understanding of the proposal is:
>> >
>> > Discovery:
>> >
>> > 1) Router SHOULD send 'Advertise' UDP messages on IANA assigned
>> > link-local multicast address:port at periodic interval ANNOUNCE_INTERVAL.
>> > 'Advertise' messages MUST contain the DLEP version TLV.
>> > 'Advertise' messages MAY contain alternate TCP address TLV.  (E.g. ipv4
>> > fallback)
>> > 'Advertise' messages MAY contain alternate TCP port TLV.
>> > 'Advertise' messages MAY contain secondary reliable transport protocol
>> > endpoint address TLV.  (E.g. SCTP address)
>> >
>> > Initiation:
>> >
>> > 0) Router listens on a TCP port, the port SHOULD be the IANA assigned
>> > DLEP port.
>> >
>> > 1) Modem connects to a TCP endpoint either discovered from 'Advertise'
>> > messages, or from alternate discovery mechanism (e.g. mDNS), or a-priori
>> > configuration.
>> >
>> > 2) Modem MUST send 'Initialize' message.
>> > 'Initialize' message MUST contain DLEP version TLV.
>> > 'Initialize' message MUST contain Identification TLV.
>> > 'Initialize' message MUST contain for all mandatory DLEP metric TLVs
>> > with values.
>> >
>> > 2) Router MUST reply with 'Accept' message, or shut down the connection.
>> > 'Accept' message MUST contain DLEP version TLV.
>> > 'Accept' message MUST contain Identification TLV.
>> > 'Accept' message MUST contain Status TLV.  This will indicate: Success,
>> > Reject, etc... (TBD)
>> > 'Accept' message MAY contain secondary reliable transport protocol
>> > endpoint address TLV.  (E.g. SCTP address)
>>
>> Isn't this in the transport layer?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 2a) If Status TLV is a failure: Router MUST and Modem SHOULD close the
>> > TCP connection.
>>
>> I think it is better to specify which node MUST close the connection.
>> That's the one that sends the Reject. The FIN follows. Why SHOULD the other
>> start closing the connection? It can wait on FIN, it MUST come. Or wait for
>> heartbeat dead time, as safeguard.
>>
>>
>> > 2b) If Status TLV is a success: Session is established.
>> >
>> > 3) Router MAY stop any active discover process.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean, if TCP server is on modem.
>> Router SHOULD continue to listen to discovery packets.
>> FYI: new BGAN terminals support some kind of bonding. Some deploy an RF
>> link with Tx&Rx-only modems.
>>
>> >
>> > 4) Router MAY stop listening for more connections on the TCP port.
>> >
>> > Notes:
>> >
>> > a) Stan probably has different names for the messages.
>> > b) I have made the Router the TCP server in this example, because it
>> > forces the modem to announce it's capabilities/TLVs in the 'Initialize'
>> > message, and I believe it's the way Stan is leaning.
>> > c) If the roles are reversed then the 'Accept' message must carry the
>> > mandatory TLVs, and an extra 'Unacceptable' message is required from the
>> > Router to Modem explaining why the Router closed the connection if it
>> > doesn't like the TLVs from the Modem.
>>
>> So this is the three-way handshake.
>> I didn't understand why the Router didn't send the full set of supported
>> TLVs. OK, Ik know this is more relevant for link metrics from modem to
>> router. But for protocol specification, I haven't a clear picture what we
>> designed.
>>
>> Teco
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Does this sound right?  Or am I way off?
>> >
>> > I'd just like to get this part fixed as I have more topics up for
>> > debate, and I reckon we could announce this as progress on the WG list.
>> >
>> > Rick
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered
long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to
set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan