RE: [Manet-dt] Question and Comment on OLSRv2-03

"Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> Tue, 12 June 2007 12:27 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 1Hy5T5-00013i-Hc; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:27:27 -0400
Received: from manet-dt by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hy5T3-00013N-WC for manet-dt-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:27:26 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hy5T3-00013E-Mb; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:27:25 -0400
Received: from smtp2.bae.co.uk ([20.133.0.12]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hy5Sx-0001fF-Ml; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:27:25 -0400
Received: from smtpb.greenlnk.net (smtpb.greenlnk.net [10.15.160.219]) by smtp2.bae.co.uk (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id l5CCRIgA013763; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:27:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET (glkas0002.greenlnk.net [10.15.184.52]) by smtpb.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id l5CCRILS025041; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:27:18 +0100
Received: from glkms1101.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.109]) by glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:27:18 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.93]) by glkms1101.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:27:18 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
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] Question and Comment on OLSRv2-03
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:27:18 +0100
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D11AB70@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <AAEDC8F7-AF88-48FF-8D56-77CB30579336@computer.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Manet-dt] Question and Comment on OLSRv2-03
Thread-Index: Aces27rTWvLuDt8ETuiUFllRuxHdLAAAJ0Iw
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: Thomas Heide Clausen <T.Clausen@computer.org>, mase <mase@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2007 12:27:18.0293 (UTC) FILETIME=[04500C50:01C7ACED]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
Cc: manet <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

One key point here is that nhdp-03 is now, I think, technically
essentially finished. However olsrv2-03 needs updating to be
consistent with nhdp-03. Fortunately this won't be as big a
job as the update to nhdp-03. Some specific comments.

> Does this mean that the address must be included in the same
> order in all copies of a given HELLO message, regardless of 
> hich OLSRv2 nterface it is transmitted on?

No. There's no constraint stated, so there is no constraint.
You can put them in any order. And note that there are no
different interface copies of a HELLO message, HELLO messages
are generated independently on each interface, they aren't the
same, and may not be sent at the same time either (but they
may be, but are still different).

> If so, the description in 9.2 of OLSRv2 -03 should be modified

That's one of those things that needs checking. But TC messages
are the same on all interfaces, including having the same ordering.
Any ordering, but the same.

> To do this, information on local attached network of a node is
> advertised in the Local Interface Block of the HELLO messages.
> However, it is not clear which information base is poplulated
> when this information is received by a MPR of this node.

I think it is explained. But when we're revising the document
we'll bear that comment in mind, and check it.

> I also have a question with reagard to attached network
> advertisement in HELLO messages. Why may attached networks
> with dist>0 not be advertized in HELLO messages?

The main reason is that you can do this for free in a HELLO
message without modifying NHDP in this case. (In fact arguably
we now should just say "treat it as a local non-MANET interface
and put it in the Local Interface Set rather than the Local
Attached Network Set. That's something we're thinking about.)
To do it for dist>0 in a HELLO message is more tricky, although
it can be done it may be unnecessarily complicating.

> 3. "Local Attached Neighbor Tuple" in 12 of OLSRv2-03
> should be "Local Attached Nework Tuple".

Thanks.

********************************************************************
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