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

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

Op 7 mrt. 2014, om 17:39 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:

> 
> On Mar 6, 2014, at 4:38 AM, Teco Boot <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> So we should throw away our PS radio’s?
> 
> No. The PS radios use 802.11 *spectrum* (2.4GHz), but do NOT use 802.11 layer 2. They wrote their own. I think they borrowed the frame formats, but nothing more. So comparing Persistent Systems to a WiFi radio is apples-to-oranges. 

WiFi != 802.11.

Many ad hoc radio’s are based on 802.11 IBSS. They do deviate. An important deviation: For LAN connected nodes, we need at least four MAC address fields, not three as in IBSS.

The 802.11 MBSS (Mesh BSS, 11s) header supports the number of MAC addresses we need.

Teco

> 
> Regards,
> Stan
> 
>> Teco
>> 
>> Op 5 mrt. 2014, om 22:11 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> OK, this is IMO, but…
>>> 
>>> That is pretty much a one-off, for a research or lab-type effort. As a professor of mine in college used to say, "No one in their right mind will ever use 802.11 adhoc for anything more than a development/research platform". I just don't see bending the protocol to put this in for no more use than we'll get out of it. 
>>> 
>>> After all, nothing stops you from inserting an extra TLV into your own implementation.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Stan
>>> 
>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Henning Rogge <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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
>> 
>