Re: [Manet-dt] Re: [manet] Need for DPD header (SMF document discussion) - ValidReason for Tagger ID

Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Wed, 02 May 2007 21:08 UTC

Return-path: <manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjM47-0001RJ-ED; Wed, 02 May 2007 17:08:47 -0400
Received: from manet-dt by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HjM45-0001Qj-76 for manet-dt-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 17:08:45 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjM44-0001Pk-JC; Wed, 02 May 2007 17:08:44 -0400
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.83.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjM43-00051i-BL; Wed, 02 May 2007 17:08:44 -0400
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.8) with SMTP id l42L8hOB016208; Wed, 2 May 2007 17:08:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [132.250.92.151] ([132.250.92.151]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.12.43) with SMTP id M2007050217084204317 ; Wed, 02 May 2007 17:08:42 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240812c25eada9f581@[132.250.92.151]>
In-Reply-To: <4638FC77.3080806@nokia.com>
References: <p06240807c25e69a50462@[132.250.92.151]> <4638D3E0.4010106@nokia.com> <p06240810c25ea6cb597c@[132.250.92.151]> <4638FC77.3080806@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 17:08:40 -0400
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@nokia.com>
From: Brian Adamson <adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] Re: [manet] Need for DPD header (SMF document discussion) - ValidReason for Tagger ID
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
Cc: manet@ietf.org, manet-dt@ietf.org
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>
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org

That was my point.  The "glue" to get an IPv6 option header added 
makes the difference of whether the SMF DPD option data field is one 
byte or three bytes (the suggested format that supports the TaggerId 
concept) almost inconsequential since in many cases this will likely 
be the only option added ... But all the trade-offs need to go into 
the decision bucket.

At 2:02 PM -0700 5/2/07, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>Hello Brian,
>
>The option could be simpler, because its only purpose would
>be to distinguish different flooded packets.  Since any node
>adding this option would use the same hash to find if there
>had been a collision recently, there would be no need for the
>Tagger ID.  I reckon that the data field for the option might
>only have to be one byte, but of course there is all the glue.
>
>Regards,
>Charlie P.
>
>
>
>
>ext Brian Adamson wrote:
>>Wr2 to a simpler SMF DPD option, it's hard to do much simpler for 
>>IPv6 because of the multiple of 8 octets sizing that IPv6 option 
>>headers require ... yes, _some_ savings might be garnered under 
>>certain conditions when other options were also present, but the 
>>current SMF DPD options adds the minimum possible to an IPv6 its 
>>the only option added.


-- 
Brian
__________________________________
Brian Adamson
<mailto:adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil>


_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
Manet-dt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt