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

["Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[e-mail]>]

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. 

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
>