RE: [Manet-dt] NHDP - solicit?
"Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> Mon, 26 February 2007 09:36 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLcHv-000118-QZ; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:36:55 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLcHu-000113-F7 for manet-dt@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:36:54 -0500
Received: from smtp1.bae.co.uk ([20.133.0.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLcHt-0003wi-0i for manet-dt@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:36:54 -0500
Received: from smtpc.greenlnk.net (smtpc.greenlnk.net [10.15.160.220]) by smtp1.bae.co.uk (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id l1Q9afBd012640 for <manet-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:36:41 GMT
Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET (glkas0002.greenlnk.net [10.15.184.52]) by smtpc.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id l1Q9adTV014314 for <manet-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:36:39 GMT
Received: from glkms0002.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.2]) by glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:36:41 -0000
Received: from glkms2122.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.26]) by glkms0002.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:36:41 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Manet-dt] NHDP - solicit?
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:36:40 -0000
Message-ID: <D6474CBFA00000469EF69CCED40450991F5C0B@glkms2122>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Manet-dt] NHDP - solicit?
Thread-Index: AcdXqWEtPQlh2JMtRv+JptlmwlXTMgB3kG8Q
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: Ian Chakeres <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>, manet-dt@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2007 09:36:41.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[9EF0EED0:01C75989]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
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>
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org
I don't think you need to change anything. - Why would node A want to solicit node B sending information? Only if node B's information is different to node A's most recent view of node B's state (special case: node B has never sent any information). - This must be due to a change in the neighbourhood of node B (as neighbourhood information is what node B sends in HELLO messages). - But we already have permission in NHDP for a node to send information in response to neighbourhood change or other events. This will actually be strengthened in the next draft of NHDP, which we are finishing up. It's possible to run NHDP based entirely on triggered messages, rather than on interval based messages (though you may need to make one of those triggers than your neighbours' information is about to become stale). - A protocol using NHDP can make this behaviour madatory if it wants to. - Yes, we could add stuff like a "mandatory trigger TLV". But this wouldn't achieve anything that the curreent mechanism can't handle - there's no need for information unless it's changed. Also I can think of numerous things that could be added to NHDP which someone might want. That's the road to ruin of a bloated protocol. The whole point of extensibility is if someone needs something they can add it, and that would apply here too. Obvious example is that OLSRv2 needs MPRs, but adds them itself - and makes a change in MPR Set and additional triggering option. - We also have a flow control mechanism to prevent cascades, a HELLO_MIN_INTERVAL. -----Original Message----- From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:ian.chakeres@gmail.com] Sent: 24 February 2007 00:19 To: manet-dt@ietf.org Subject: [Manet-dt] NHDP - solicit? *** WARNING *** This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. I've been reading through some of the MANEMO messages and there was mention that ND is more appropriate for certain things as it has the ability to solicit messages from nearby nodes. Do you think NHDP should include semantics for soliciting responses from nearby NHDP nodes? Ian _______________________________________________ Manet-dt mailing list Manet-dt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Manet-dt mailing list Manet-dt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
- [Manet-dt] NHDP - solicit? Ian Chakeres
- RE: [Manet-dt] NHDP - solicit? Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
- RE: [Manet-dt] NHDP - solicit? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: [Manet-dt] NHDP - solicit? Joe Macker