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

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

I dont think there is a current wifi driver with 4 address adhoc mode.

Henning
On Mar 6, 2014 9:18 AM, "Teco Boot" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>
>