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

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Fri, 07 March 2014 16:39 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 D8BD71A01E7 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:39:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 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=-0.547, 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 sAiPf1cdAiWB for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719C01A02C7 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:39:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7156; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394210374; x=1395419974; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=fmQ6xDQHu9ugB720jptT7hlbSoXlwRuW5Iv3h653gCE=; b=ku6FWUiSwINy5QLfq4rqVUzwVW1NEJpf3kQvPdqTfNuGZ/HDz4G5JJ/C JlOs7DCbDC3pb4kBErVFTmglU4nN352kOs6vkFXKRK7zSGVx5Y3l+OhOI 1eTd5lf0ytvNOv7+tBXiNfKGPYKP3txGcb744LFvOXpbwk/RXBH7UB/QL Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAHL1GVOtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V8ElgRIWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQFrCwULAgEIGC4hBgslAgQOBYdlAwkIDckDDYZzEwSMRIFDITMHgySBFASWVoFtjGOFSIMtgis
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,608,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="308851149"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2014 16:39:33 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s27GdX6K010221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:39:33 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.172]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:39:32 -0600
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Thread-Topic: [manet-dlep-rg] London meet up?
Thread-Index: AQHPNs8E5rMtCHw0g0CYI/Qmazemk5rPXBYAgAAtoeCAAzYSuYAAdfaAgAAZTQCAAAj4AIAACoCAgAAA3wCAAAJVgIAA0O4AgAIH8YA=
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:39:31 +0000
Message-ID: <B25E107D-1864-44B9-BDDB-193F53F6DB31@cisco.com>
References: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA6C34C0@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <480A632F-CB9E-4A62-ACDA-521C1A899049@inf-net.nl> <CAGnRvuqL8z+P5BJP-duyQo2BnTSpnkv7nDnOEdAQ1RfdXu7r+Q@mail.gmail.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA6C4B60@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA6C56BA@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CAGnRvuotok8UC-=i9RU8RvAv_wcv1DE3ubRLqibWeDLF6KRuDA@mail.gmail.com> <FB821471-E223-41BE-8D38-24C54B2B92C5@cisco.com> <CAGnRvupAoaLtvsHh6TLXvxsBnmrLMtPCZ-VKuxR=gVPxnchWDQ@mail.gmail.com> <67373A27-5AB2-47D3-B543-C0EB72D0AD7C@cisco.com> <CAGnRvuqHknFWoLyv5RjM3OcJ+g4WsRTphMH8d9wLQV+m+J+6uw@mail.gmail.com> <DBAE1DE6-0929-40B3-A044-AF3560829F16@cisco.com> <DB8478A3-BC4C-4B87-8CAB-BC219FA4B7DD@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <DB8478A3-BC4C-4B87-8CAB-BC219FA4B7DD@inf-net.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.102.41.104]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <C108440E3432B344B9DD998401A380E5@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet-dlep-rg/ujIuUXUV7rFLN_OYhpgd3jilBpo
Cc: "DLEP Research Group, \(manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org\)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>, Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] London meet up?
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, 07 Mar 2014 16:39:42 -0000

On Mar 6, 2014, at 4:38 AM, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>; 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. 

Regards,
Stan

> Teco
> 
> Op 5 mrt. 2014, om 22:11 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff@cisco.com>; 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 <hrogge@gmail.com>; 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)
>>> <sratliff@cisco.com>; wrote:
>>>> What would that MAC address be used for? I don't understand.
>>>> 
>>>> Stan
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>; 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)
>>>>> <sratliff@cisco.com>; 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 <hrogge@gmail.com>;
>>>>>> 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" <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>;
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
>> manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
>