IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] packetbb update idea

Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> Mon, 03 July 2017 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C54126BFD for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Molf7VVp5xq for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CB871200C1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id w126so177404981wme.0 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 12:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=Vbk0imUsc4T3ZxJFFxaC+IZAAmXtWoSxlVI2fwWwR7M=; b=kBDRTo3jN+M5351ObD5/X05NchFqriZ0jaBvS6WvQrH7ZLVJV5z5w8vg4su9k2E0bG 8/K0s7zKpbYmC9kUUg0KDI87PpNYOAiGF1OKMvHAi3zEYI3/7XWfJFFCEZ3CcV+CHyvQ 3pGI9CxvYBR2lGf8SalzPwyM6Wh1IMox66Zg6PMwX/E1NEdXOX7E5Dt6DulXHn6ySFoM luPKTXEbYjXQ+APmJDyL2dmgvzOWYNeN8NqCuHPxOtVgtCvT+wtNctsZfn9ytS2Pd7XY +KwBODI5zo9+ZAGTqKYJNMItUMFtlGP9LrcydeDlC97pNt3dh2THvIlv65fZaYvQnDfT q1sQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=Vbk0imUsc4T3ZxJFFxaC+IZAAmXtWoSxlVI2fwWwR7M=; b=k/FpYJtd3nuHsy0T4JU0y9GFw4kU39ETIY8afLdlhHcm7wAPYD+4hg4hqrMI01ZzAd 8g67m1z9ONK+LWDMf8CwySqqdlRwlOQrKA+XwzACenRFnadi3ekLQxWL83dk0w/o9/FJ jFu6pyu2uEJsOazsRdR3PZ1hSndyeMFJ1sSgYePfoKxJpMcPdM8IwtXd6buRBHP76LUr AfD5qz24xbQgvB2L3vrFHGbZS7QE/b/DnL3W+uo5JFrcf1pqRDbBjQ9O+ZBGs0oOtriV 5gE8bYtA7wl1Us1SOCEXDj8gms+MdpM53wihz3Xk/jA4DlwFu0z3I+y42ldBs7Gh7xIW AWUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwHs5kpMozisNedtus/53gJH3lYcPVPohGddC/Aq701HdzlUQ6u 7M1CtNW5Opzpgj5nFPY=
X-Received: by 10.28.199.200 with SMTP id x191mr15400221wmf.94.1499111512392; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 12:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.4.11.24] (82-132-223-82.dab.02.net. [82.132.223.82]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r187sm24424728wmg.15.2017.07.03.12.51.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Jul 2017 12:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
References: <CA+-pDCcfXm-Vf11FZ+KmAk-ZMYBdTZ-+kPebNkd4KtEa8eEX4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAGnRvupo2wOLcb+zfM7B43y3UYCYJE8c=2Xmdj6pEoZv52zeQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-pDCcnYTW=7JS6HPv1CdM9Va5XNL6BT+UHCrQODg5kB8Sa8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAGnRvurutSfKFmkD_1ZuMy5s+sXuGnKR-3GuhDWXz2uz8dgZng@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGnRvurutSfKFmkD_1ZuMy5s+sXuGnKR-3GuhDWXz2uz8dgZng@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <5AFC410E-67DC-4641-B654-2D46165CD2B8@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14F89)
From: Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:51:46 +0100
To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/023J5f85Vk07sgEHOM1ohsp5O8c>
Subject: Re: [manet] packetbb update idea
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 19:51:59 -0000

I'm strongly in favour of doing what you can with what you've got unless the need is critical, because of all the upgrade, compatibility and specification issues that a change entails. Particularly as the last posting we just saw was two compatible implementations being discussed/announced.

My first thoughts run along Henning's lines, but before I get to that, what's the use case? What would we want to apply to two addresses? If two why not three? Or more. You can signal source/destination with a TLV with values source, destination, unspecified. Which is improved in efficiency if the addresses are close to each other. And that allows all sorts of generalisations.

--  
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@gmail.com

> On 3 Jul 2017, at 19:56, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You mean for things like source-specific routing (having a source- and
>>> destination prefix for an attached network)?
>>> 
>>> I remember I did a rough sketch for this (I have implemented in my
>>> Olsrd2-Implementation) and I was forced to put one of the addresses
>>> uncompressed into a data TLV.
>>> 
>> Yes it could work for that.  I did the same thing when I started to sketch
>> out a layout that worked with RFC5444.  Having the extra index instead of
>> including the full address saves a bunch of space when transmitting a lot of
>> pairwise information. 1 byte instead of 16 when working with ipv6.
> 
> why not add a single TLV with 1 byte (multivalue) for all addresses?
> This would give you the second index with just a constant overhead (2
> bytes? 3?) per address block.
> 
>> One other thing I think might be nice is an address block block.  It would
>> be a simple container (or an implied container but I think that could get
>> ugly) for address blocks so different similar addresses could be compressed
>> but share an indexing scheme.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> Henning
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email