Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Example: TCP server on satcom modem

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <sratliff@cisco.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 5F6E01AE00C for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:20:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.026
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 1ggLhHg99ruG for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D721ADFB6 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:20:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2299; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385140794; x=1386350394; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=yATgztR3YMGxaQHL/x+auJVbQQlYwwnFbGl94PLEJy4=; b=BcRlJ+3qt0nk3O2USC2Hvrsr+KfLDtyftPx6ySGzowBR5Q2lI2YaW3mJ VbNf+8pql0QSZa8rWs5COinILue8cl2Z2uaZvMrxFpvZFpCO3gVsPeIwF HbyKfRcfee0/i1tOKvFFdJO4aVJc66DzP+etx9EiMRMt7p0RNxBUGKS4C 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwFANiRj1KtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U7wWgSIWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQFrCwULAgEIRicLJQIEDgWHewYNwRsTBI5UCCsHgyCBEgOYFJISgyiCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,753,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="1546230"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2013 17:19:53 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAMHJrXf005765 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:19:53 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.200]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:19:53 -0600
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Thread-Topic: [manet-dlep-rg] Example: TCP server on satcom modem
Thread-Index: AQHO556nwQsGowunpEOasEd6OsyDR5ox43MA
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:19:52 +0000
Message-ID: <6621D616-E902-4135-910C-06F0C2644BA6@cisco.com>
References: <42E5DED5-98E2-4A56-9348-AED15A5F513F@cisco.com> <27434E92-CF57-4469-99F1-D8A27A4E20D9@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <27434E92-CF57-4469-99F1-D8A27A4E20D9@inf-net.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.102.41.113]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <C10811ACC1E71740A49EE5C562DFE7AD@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "\(manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org\) manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org Group" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Example: TCP server on satcom modem
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 17:20:03 -0000

OK. 

I talked with the Persistent Systems folks this week at MILCOM. Their response was that they don't care whether the radio (modem) is the TCP client or server. 

So, if they don't care, I'll change my position to "I don't care, either". Other than the fact that I think making the modem the server looks completely backwards to me. Let's wrap this point up and move on… what is the consensus of the DT as to what should be in the spec? 

One side note I feel compelled to point out - if the consensus is to make the modem the TCP server, and there's pushback in the WG on it, don't expect me to defend the position.  One other comment inline:


On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> wrote:

> I verified operation of a telnet server on a old type BGAN terminal (E500).
> It is compatible with 3GPP TS 27.007.
> It is multi-hop unicast reachable from routers and other node types. 
> Multiple connections can be same source, same destination. Think of NAT. Interfaces on my routers pointing towards Internet have NAT.

While multiple connections on a telnet server makes sense, I don't think multiple connections makes sense on DLEP. 

Stan

> 
> Although 3GPP TS 27.007 is a standard, the satcom extensions are not. 
> For LTE, it doesn't look much better.
> 
> Attached a screenshot with two active 3GPP TS 27.007 sessions.
> Device provides IP address and default gateway. But SQ is zero, it is in pointing mode. So it is a blackhole.
> Having DLEP on this type of equipment would help a lot.
> 
> Teco
> 
> <Schermafbeelding 2013-11-22 om 16.03.33.png>
> 
> 
> lease {
>   interface "eth1";
>   fixed-address 192.168.0.2;
>   server-name "BGAN-UT";
>   option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
>   option routers 192.168.0.1;
>   option dhcp-lease-time 30;
>   option dhcp-message-type 5;
>   option dhcp-server-identifier 192.168.0.1;
>   option dhcp-renewal-time 10;
>   option dhcp-rebinding-time 10;
>   renew 5 2013/11/22 16:11:19;
>   rebind 5 2013/11/22 16:11:20;
>   expire 5 2013/11/22 16:11:40;
> }
> _______________________________________________
> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
> manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg