Re: [manet-dlep-rg] DLEP Capabilities exchange

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <> Wed, 22 January 2014 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A23F1A00B6 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:22:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.036
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qi7ElfxYVed0 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3711A0132 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:22:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2981; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390400547; x=1391610147; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Jn7lrxy9V/9q9B6wEbuyvgcTZW7W/jMMg3lQBchLRwc=; b=PrqU9kwtLh8+cxsM/++PafjMKPnDHyiMW6EmSsB/qq+ZS1j34jTqoM1e 3i4IUq/lT8jRXMqn+yiB7HBM9tNbBN0G010Og98eD1wfnII2Y8SxIp5h9 shRciQ06ojDixk3vkIknsmIxOZ6fC+B2vkj7raVm1F/VSvBkCRFo7G82R 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,700,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="298944812"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2014 14:22:09 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0MEM9Hk013883 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:22:09 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:22:09 -0600
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <>
To: Teco Boot <>
Thread-Topic: [manet-dlep-rg] DLEP Capabilities exchange
Thread-Index: AQHPFuXmq7CDqyipwE+xoJktNrryzpqQG5GAgAEV5AA=
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:22:07 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "\(\) Group" <>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] DLEP Capabilities exchange
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DLEP Radio Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:22:42 -0000


Yeah, we're on the same page in that this isn't a negotiation. This is just giving the router and the modem some ways to signal the other that (for lack of a better term) "I'm special in some way" - in my case below, the satellite network is more efficient if the DR is co-located with the NC. This *could* be done with a-priori configuration, but it's easier if the NC announces itself (the NC function can, to an extent, be dynamically assigned). Please notice - I never used the word "negotiation" in the initial email… ;-) Perhaps I should have said a "Capabilities Announcement"? 


On Jan 21, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Teco Boot <>

> Poeh, way back struggling with this.
> Yes, this kind of information exchange is useful. But why would this example need negotiation? Just sending the TLV is OK, and routers can drop it or use it at own willing.
> For for example a BW allocation sub protocol, I can imagine both modem and router MUST first agree before bothering each other with a "foreign DLEP sub-protocol language". The negotiation SHOULD NOT terminate the DLEP session. And can take place at any time after DLEP session setup.
> The flow control and link characteristics request capabilities could be negotiated.
> Teco
> Op 21 jan. 2014, om 21:18 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <> het volgende geschreven:
>> Gentlemen, 
>> Well, sigh…  I've been frankly trying to avoid this, but it's a subject I want to breach - if not for DLEP-05, then maybe for an 06. 
>> I've been thinking again about some exchange of capabilities. Not for a DLEP session startup, but to cover some specific use cases. The first one I'll throw out is this: 
>> Consider a deployment using OSPF, over satellite. That OSPF network is defined as a standard broadcast (Ethernet) segment, with a Designated Router (DR) and a Backup DR (BDR). In the satellite implementation I'm considering, it would be a good thing if the DR was co-located with the SatCom "Network Controller". 
>> So, I'm thinking about a capabilities exchange, where the modem (the satcom terminal) tells the router "I'm the NC". This would, in turn, cause the connected router to be "very willing" (whatever that means) to be the DR in an OSPF election (the next election that occurs on this link)… There would also have to be an "I'm NOT the NC anymore" message that flows from modem to router if/when that function is reassigned in the network. 
>> I'm sure there are other cases. Let's see if we can make a run at enumerating (and hopefully "generalizing") them.
>> Regards,
>> Stan
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet-dlep-rg mailing list