RE: [Manet-dt] More Discussion on DYMO using Common Packet Format
"Luke Klein-Berndt" <kleinb@nist.gov> Mon, 23 January 2006 20:04 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
id 1F17vM-00085G-9f; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:04:24 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F17vK-00085B-Vd
for manet-dt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:04:23 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13992
for <manet-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:02:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rimp2.nist.gov ([129.6.16.227] helo=smtp.nist.gov)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F184k-0002P8-C2
for manet-dt@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:14:06 -0500
Received: from p623420 (p623420.nist.gov [129.6.68.43])
by smtp.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0NK4336012693;
Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:04:18 -0500
From: "Luke Klein-Berndt" <kleinb@nist.gov>
To: "'Ian Chakeres'" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>, <manet-dt@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Manet-dt] More Discussion on DYMO using Common Packet Format
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:04:03 -0500
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
Message-ID: <000601c62058$28c9ea10$2b440681@campus.nist.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcYfpCc87xW4olzoS66LWLI4X5CFjgAf6ajQ
In-Reply-To: <34867C71-273E-4E8D-9EB5-FB80B052A4E4@gmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-NIST-MailScanner-From: kleinb@nist.gov
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ec7c6dab5a62df223002ae71b5179d41
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
X-BeenThere: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MANET Design Team <manet-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>,
<mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/manet-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>,
<mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org
It is all starting to come together. And of course I have some stupid clarifying questions. - Shouldn't there be a TLV for the Target address? The TLV would reference the address in the address block. I wasn't sure if this was assumed or it is handled differently. - Would the originator address be specified in the originator field of the message or would it be in the address block. - Why only limit it to one target address for multicast/MANETcast messages? It could be interesting to specify multiple address that you would like ACKs from when they receive the message. Sort of a Sloppy Multicast QoS. - To determine multicast or unicast it would not be based solely upon the address type. If there are more than one target addresses or a multicast/MANETcast address then MANETcast. If there is a single unicast target address then unicast. - Do we want a Message TLV to signify MANETcast or multicast? It could be an optional Multicast TLV that would fall back on Multicast when needed. I like how this is coming along though! -Luke -----Original Message----- From: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Chakeres Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 5:34 PM To: manet-dt@ietf.org Subject: [Manet-dt] More Discussion on DYMO using Common Packet Format I'm trying to write a new DYMO ID using the common packet format but there is a lot to change. I'm going to post a few portions here and I would like your feedback. ================================== 3.2.1. Generic Packet and Message Structure All DYMO messages MUST conform to the generic message format as described in draft-clausen-olsrv2-fmt-00.txt. <packet> = <packet-header>? {<message><pad-octet>*}+ <packet-header> = <zero> <reserved> <packet-seq-number> <message> = <msg-header> <tlv-block> {<addr-block><tlv-block>}* <msg-header> = <type> <msg-semantics> <msg-size> <msg-header-info>? <msg-header-info> = <originator-address> <ttl> <hop-count> <msg-seq-number> <tlv-block> = <tlv-length> <tlv>* <address-block> = <head-length> <head> <num-tails> <tail>+ <tlv> = <type> <length> <index-start> <index-stop> <value> ================================= 3.2.2. Routing Message (RM) RM conform to the generic message structure. RM is a message with msg-type TBD. msg-semantics RM MUST contain I-bit RM MUST contain A-bit RM MUST contain S-bit msg-tlvs RM MUST contain 1 and only 1 msg tlv of TTL add-blocks RM MUST contain 1 and only 1 address marked as Originator if the message is unicast (the IPDestinationAddress is a unicast address), RM MUST contain 1 and only 1 address marked as Target add-tlv RM MUST contain an Originator SeqNum RM SHOULD contain an Originator HopCnt (OrigHopCnt). If OrigHopCnt is not included, it is assumed to be zero (unknown) RM SHOULD contain an Target Last Known SeqNum (TargetSeqNum) if unicast. If TargetSeqNum is not included in the message it is assumed to be zero (unknown) RM SHOULD contain an Target Last Known HopCnt (TargetHopCnt) if unicast. If TargetHopCnt is not included in the message it is assumed to be zero (unknown) ================================== 3.2.3. Route Error (RERR) RERR must confirm to the generic message structure RERR is a message with msg-type TBD. msg-semantics RERR MUST contain I-bit msg-tlvs RERR MUST contain 1 and only 1 msg tlv of TTL add-blocks RERR MUST contain 1 or more addresses marked as unreachable RERR MAY contain an 1 and only 1 address marked a Originator RERR MUST contain an 1 and only 1 address marked a Target if unicast IPDestinationAddress RERR MAY contain an 1 and only 1 address marked a Target if IPDestinationAddress is not a unicast address add-tlvs RERR SHOULD contain SeqNum for each unreachable node. If the SeqNum is not included in the message it is assumed to be zero (unknown) RERR SHOULD contain the Last Known HopCnt for each unreachable node. If the HopCnt is not included in the message it is assumed to be zero (unknown) RERR MAY contain an Originator SeqNum. If the SeqNum is not included in the message it is assumed to be zero (unknown) RERR MAY contain an Originator HopCnt. If the HopCnt is not included in the message it is assumed to be zero (unknown) RERR MAY contain an Target Last Known SeqNum. If the SeqNum is not included in the message it is assumed to be zero (unknown) RERR MAY contain an Target Last Known HopCnt. If the HopCnt is not included in the message it is assumed to be zero (unknown) ================================== 6. IANA Considerations DYMO defines several message-types and tlv-types. A new registry will be created for the values for the various type fields, and the following values will be assigned: message-type Value -------------------------------- ----- Routing Message (RM) 1 Route Error (RERR) 2 message-tlv Value -------------------------------- ----- TTL TBD address-tlv Value -------------------------------- ----- DYMO Sequence Number (multivalue) TBD Hop Count (multivalue) TBD Gateway TBD Originator TBD Target TBD _______________________________________________ Manet-dt mailing list Manet-dt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt _______________________________________________ Manet-dt mailing list Manet-dt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
- [Manet-dt] More Discussion on DYMO using Common P… Ian Chakeres
- RE: [Manet-dt] More Discussion on DYMO using Comm… Luke Klein-Berndt
- Re: [Manet-dt] More Discussion on DYMO using Comm… Ian Chakeres