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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 22 November 2013 18:28 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 6EF961AE1B7 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:35 -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 7_WarVtyYrwx for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-f182.google.com (mail-ea0-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08A81ADFCE for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f182.google.com with SMTP id o10so865223eaj.13 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:24 -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=noHUwYWxB4U1oaVPVGwpEJLZ2sMGBmfkh3YEJ3AoQII=; b=iOh6ZCuibK9ovpi0bIetVpRN2E2eFHdCjMjKNjEnJI2PujqeqOJ6U66khj5VuCESTg zAhtCVwFHpzRQFThigPnwICsDK0U4PiuLDORpunWeDdrEncR9fIyMDLCkfW5yl4Rw/Aw O5mu7L4yr9SoHuEET5CnBRZx/lrwciEXTi4AVrICZSCpxWVkZK29JZmYDHOM0MIfnD0o 78f287uCGNU4sa4yeupGNz8WgRpU3nK6AcU0cJWPfSq0ENWgvcxwY3y8O7MyHFsyuLrG gFQAeGuiVykp6zrvgfxdgZXfvAPdyY3yFYJ2sYgH3bTUVdxjE7298vG8IKc5qvXP4E2V h3MA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmnX6qGO/RdkxdbSi+WiwmR0dqXz7n23xhPgrLa/jk5nyC8xweWG2SvpT0sXj2F1BQn9bVN
X-Received: by 10.15.23.76 with SMTP id g52mr18458569eeu.2.1385144904913; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.175.173.95] (524A14A4.cm-4-3a.dynamic.ziggo.nl. [82.74.20.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u46sm79661643eep.17.2013.11.22.10.28.23 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA5B554A@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:28:41 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3C3C98E5-9D89-4727-B411-E0D6358E9485@inf-net.nl>
References: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA5B5504@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA5B554A@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
To: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: "manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org Group, \(manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org\)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:28:35 -0000

+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