Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: manet@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FEDDC938DD for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:30:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1776238231; bh=rl6xDeL799OrX9ontlITwtK0bQ/9ztHhdQrA/uMHIns=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To; b=YW9aRIO4+rmoks/P4S8Vl94eqmHfgpmbgyirqj4S0MqD6xKWAlo0Fh5UJ2S72CMcX fhWGOFGOX/Q4yyhfyKDsn5BnN7kzIl6gHuPwtAqCmvoO2qwKS78ALaMbI6kufXdskl stCM71c47HyXlAGpYSeAHh7yQcNVUT8Oz/IyEjpI= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.125 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.973, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OYu6OWNXc_LH for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98A83DC93803 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-43d73352cf2so2841908f8f.1 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1776238188; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=VN1XHoCL5G/e2yuDFQ5PdXaO9kO9LRAgpMLN+ibF3JPGbCVFxo0sAk7Eto54UsPZmt 4RYNtnlZ+UMIS/GmI/R36aefR10j++TqWzzUok5c3vgxQereIwCCCeoNQa001CbjpgJe jE0C48MigCOhdaDPBE8z2iOnZ/J0cpucvtXBQ8dln9N2eH39VSZ109jCDZoYOpb+65ZA Op/j0vseaGupHq82MPllvt9hcBDnqEfldxFRs5+UFhRQj/qGtpkc+YYCHlO7nT2iTihv r+m08vyUzKtLxBLoJcri5bBeEd1DfeT8jeltPIdtIe1Xr0swhC6duBkzNmxiuWLPqJDZ RfOw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :dkim-signature; bh=lfSuJNEqdZXLCQwPi0a2dUjWqX7+GBM7FXdi3WfQ+NA=; fh=86UbS+LWsF/jeFP9064Am57C2iCL8v4UqTHOEFNnNf8=; b=PevYZTrWwO5l7TwfI3ecMOw6MElk2PR9D6EapLXGmvbHpO0AChFMCJ0QBtIPpxI9L6 gn2Mbn1KGoSPAA2YYWgshxAdXxXIer2Qi28O1UvJ2+FBDgN6FsP4X7sgxaU2fSqS6Mmp pjN6l9tlibWV2XrFX/+mU47IiM1qm0KF/RfiJiPBHDXNFp2imhNPVf/bNwnMgCMvKQBV DWjXA+HMK7NkB22dHMnIiFXbRIzlHJm3Nwc9iy7i0daYck5dnUBnajK97wHSdaMG+Uo/ roj5NRRLOWgRMDhM3TQat80LB6zb9o5l2rBXAn+rvCNwB+dfAxx+vaI25BGwG73+o8av PLKw==; darn=ietf.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1776238188; x=1776842988; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lfSuJNEqdZXLCQwPi0a2dUjWqX7+GBM7FXdi3WfQ+NA=; b=qNpNIE+dT5qEOcM0r9kLtA4uNobCSi5gC8P3JP1bSLX/BXEu/Y6vMCD52SeJZgLsLH k980zJ558EK+xsiSsdVahvv4R+LJF5qnO1nHWhWlVVBH7c5UcpPJjLMuy4LjMb/HroUh iTvkGGNjMjbyzM0WGeMCBDr7YeB8lKsyn8nUpi00raNbCF27vBsJuDhDrl9xPL9cMNyM CQg7oZFJdW5ZNJaSLaM6KgKJwU8GZqIidgSwIb6UXVu1z5I2CqLuB4/gVkXZ8Tm8NHh5 UvPyn4OvXJIT6pFupG/3Uqxw9imR7CD/l52WlLC9BdZn6vIcnobBgs1ko40b9HOELFw8 iBOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1776238188; x=1776842988; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=lfSuJNEqdZXLCQwPi0a2dUjWqX7+GBM7FXdi3WfQ+NA=; b=iyYeizMyoNkjGz33q+Y4hOVTZSQzpKDB/lMGD8yjt89/bhBa3B5RFXNY1m8OimPHoW E7Dzu6qlfCdXsxVr6KwTvxS4Mea+EAiJ8Nmn4S7OZsdINR77tNKLS7Y8On2A7BDbI2IF yGLh8slBwS3/z3WMJ+gpgWlOlAlil2IT5rZ9+g8oanx8aiIDMh5YbZx8BtdcR+PNfHTg UODFJ5tYrCdFm+FjnxlA+bDOhQ3/HO17RtgLClAy9PGcl29OPBiGlru9kvnuudR/I6y1 8mCFSSezOyIeSqMc+S31IKm5itQeG/gGMc/oMiUUBOqT/8YGea/0dvdX40ZHbYsou37J 4jNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyjdS+x60uRsm3f1vaIfqzpFA3ljeNgIUWTHlPEIBIEoTz35j/Q 4GZQWPHlldFoHCX8elhqzvJppPfwhgCR6SFO32s3Y5WqMEVKNvsK7Fiox6vmTPsL7jZEyLtW50q oy5dZcL50fJuhynW0PNfAyiN7AsSh4RZwys99 X-Gm-Gg: AeBDieup7+hn5o9YH+3b4FVibZrekmichcIAQE341XO2XWyyM6SNQDI4l5Ex66FzEzy g20NXmcjgVMp0j1si/wQZKOe/yAJ3hoVqEZeMOnAJ9njnbPkdaCIy+/8s1BA+FYjCe/U+HWPnAE K457USh58YqGbZN/k75ZtMYCo264SVITgKikZg47dg6BFBG2uyR3KrkqMN8aBjWxILhdyVFCV6a Cz2hd9DKoVGLTB2ckDM1keHQE65L25NniebmfVo5/EGQ9WVlcxQ+oJbBb6carnTw4H9CAH/ps1Y Oj4jCcf5QavbUjtzey4i X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:250c:b0:43e:a8ad:975a with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-43ea8ad9a92mr5716447f8f.4.1776238187903; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:29:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <94BAD160-CA3E-4595-90AC-54D89D974C59@gmail.com> <40B5A47D-8E6A-4F89-95BC-E61DB6DF0A8F@gmail.com> <67E930B6-33F2-428E-8286-11DC4BE91A8A@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <67E930B6-33F2-428E-8286-11DC4BE91A8A@gmail.com> From: Jaspreet Singh Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 12:59:46 +0530 X-Gm-Features: AQROBzAT2hoKe5EK5rpPLF2ze2Rr2BG-NSft3EExpxmI1x3cHQRqfUhfJIA_xx0 Message-ID: To: manet@ietf.org, manet-leave@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003a0047064f7aae93" Message-ID-Hash: VG7YOFVGDEKQ4F52YT2C7NWG2IWXKNDU X-Message-ID-Hash: VG7YOFVGDEKQ4F52YT2C7NWG2IWXKNDU X-MailFrom: jsarora1@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-manet.ietf.org-0; header-match-manet.ietf.org-1; header-match-manet.ietf.org-2; header-match-manet.ietf.org-3; header-match-manet.ietf.org-4; header-match-manet.ietf.org-5; header-match-manet.ietf.org-6; header-match-manet.ietf.org-7; header-match-manet.ietf.org-8; header-match-manet.ietf.org-9; header-match-manet.ietf.org-10; header-match-manet.ietf.org-11; header-match-manet.ietf.org-12; header-match-manet.ietf.org-13; header-match-manet.ietf.org-14; header-match-manet.ietf.org-15; header-match-manet.ietf.org-16; header-match-manet.ietf.org-17; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bmanet=5D_Re=3A_=5BEXTERNAL=5D_Re=3A_draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2?= =?utf-8?q?-responsive-03?= List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000003a0047064f7aae93 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Sir/ Ma'am, I have many times requested for Unsubscribing from all MANET group messages. Please Unsubscribe me from this group, as I don't need any of these messages. *Regards,* *Dr. Jaspreet Singh* On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 at 13:10, Christopher Dearlove < christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote: > If by look forward to you are suggesting that will happen, I don=E2=80=99= t think > so. But, yes, it would have been another logical division. > > On 14 Apr 2026, at 07:11, Henning Rogge wrote: > > Yes I agree, > > RFC 6130/7181 should have been split into more than 2 documents... but it > would have been hard at the time the documents were written. > > One thing I would look forward to would be to split away the parts of 718= 1 > that deal with the NHDP metric extension and the MPR system. Both are > totally independent from 7181 and should be an extension RFC for 6130 > instead of integrated into 7181 (in fact thats the way I have implemented > them twice). > > Henning Rogge > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 7:35=E2=80=AFPM Christopher Dearlove < > christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote: > >> An additional problem - which I think scuppers any plan of even a >> complicated 7181bis - is that almost everything that you would want to r= oll >> into 7181bis also applies to 6130 (NHDP). Unless you decided that 7181bi= s >> defined both OLSRv2 and NHDP - and that greatly increases the complexity= of >> the task - would you duplicate material between 7181bis and a 6130bis? A= nd >> that doesn=E2=80=99t consider 5444 that is used by both, but also availa= ble for >> other protocols, and similarly 7182. The only really easy ones are 7187 >> (OLSRv2) and 7466 (NHDP), but there are more to be considered, such as 7= 183. >> >> Funnily enough, the authors=E2=80=99 view was that they might have creat= ed more, >> rather than fewer documents. OLRv2 (and similarly NHDP) could be describ= ed >> in abstract terms a carrying certain information, then a separate docume= nt >> describe how to represent that information in 5444 format. Thus allowing >> alternative carriage of OLSRv2 in some systems. But that was not the IET= F >> way - it was novel enough splitting 5444 off as a separate document. >> >> On 13 Apr 2026, at 18:17, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> >> Just speaking as a WG participant, RFC 7181 seems pretty big and doing a >> bis of it like a big effort that would take some time. Meanwhile, >> draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive seems pretty short and simple. I >> think the WG should consider the "responsive" draft separately. If it is >> approved and if an RFC 7181bis project was started, the changes in the >> "responsive" draft could be rolled into a 7181bis. >> >> Thanks, >> Donald >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) >> 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA >> d3e3e3@gmail.com >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:30=E2=80=AFAM Christopher Dearlove < >> christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I was very much discussing the 7181/ OLSRv2 situation, complicated by >>> the splitting off of NHDP/6130. New protocols should be in a number of >>> pieces appropriate to their design. This is often one, but not always. >>> >>> On 20 Mar 2026, at 14:16, Templin (US), Fred L < >>> Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: >>> >>> =EF=BB=BF >>> >>> Hi Abdussalam, >>> >>> >>> >>> >> https://github.com/OLSR/OONF >>> >>> >> yes this is it >>> >>> >>> >>> I can now confirm that this builds correctly and seems to do the right >>> things when run over simple networks. I will work on testing over more >>> complex networks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you - Fred >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Abdussalam Baryun >>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2026 8:43 PM >>> *To:* Templin (US), Fred L >>> *Cc:* Christopher Dearlove ; >>> manet@ietf.org List >>> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [manet] Re: >>> draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03 >>> >>> >>> >>> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Fred, >>> >>> >>> >>> and thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 4:40=E2=80=AFPM Templin (US), Fred L < >>> Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: >>> >>> Abdussalam, >>> >>> >>> >>> >> I tried to get an implementation that was from the open source >>> community but that implementation did not work. >>> >>> >>> >>> Was this the one you were looking at: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/OLSR/OONF >>> >>> >>> >>> yes this is it >>> >>> >>> >>> The most recent tag from that distribution is v0.15.1 tagged on March >>> 19, 2018. I am unable to build from that tag due to compile time errors >>> which seems a poor state for it to be left in. If there is another >>> publicly-available OLSRv2 reference implementation I would be intereste= d to >>> hear about it, because it is not a good look for OLSRv2 to not have a >>> publicly-available reference implementation **that works** for >>> evaluation and experimentation by the community. >>> >>> >>> >>> Meanwhile, other MANET routing protocols such as OSPF-MDR in quagga and >>> Babel in free range routing are openly available for experimentation an= d >>> even semi-production service in a form that works. There is also >>> B.A.T.M.A.N which I guess is becoming known as a functional mesh networ= king >>> service. There are probably others too which I would be interested to h= ear >>> about. What has been your experience? >>> >>> >>> >>> yes agree, it is important that we in IETF MANET WG look into the >>> implementation of both OLSRv2 and AODVv2, as these were the first routi= ng >>> that was needed by this WG, however, there was in past meeting interest= by >>> our WG that we use the implementations to check its stability and >>> successfulness. >>> >>> >>> >>> best regards, >>> >>> AB >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> manet mailing list -- manet@ietf.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to manet-leave@ietf.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list -- manet@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to manet-leave@ietf.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list -- manet@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to manet-leave@ietf.org > --0000000000003a0047064f7aae93 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Sir/ Ma'am,

I = have many times requested for Unsubscribing from all MANET group messages.= =C2=A0 Please=C2=A0Unsubscribe me from this group, as I don't need any = of these messages.

<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,255)">Regards,
=C2=A0
=
Dr. Jaspreet Singh


On Tu= e, 14 Apr 2026 at 13:10, Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote:
<= /div>
If by look forw= ard to you are suggesting that will happen, I don=E2=80=99t think so. But, = yes, it would have been another logical division.

On 14 Apr 2026, at 07:11, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes I agree,

RFC 6130/7181 should have been= split into more than 2 documents... but it would have been hard at the tim= e the documents were written.

One thing I would lo= ok forward to would be to split away the parts of 7181 that deal with the N= HDP metric extension and the MPR system. Both are totally independent from = 7181 and should be an extension RFC for 6130 instead of integrated into 718= 1 (in fact thats=C2=A0the way I have implemented them twice).
Henning Rogge

On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 7:35=E2=80=AFPM Chri= stopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote:
An additional problem - wh= ich I think scuppers any plan of even a complicated 7181bis - is that almos= t everything that you would want to roll into 7181bis also applies to 6130 = (NHDP). Unless you decided that 7181bis defined both OLSRv2 and NHDP - and = that greatly increases the complexity of the task - would you duplicate mat= erial between 7181bis and a 6130bis? And that doesn=E2=80=99t consider 5444= that is used by both, but also available for other protocols, and similarl= y 7182. The only really easy ones are 7187 (OLSRv2) and 7466 (NHDP), but th= ere are more to be considered, such as 7183.

Funnily eno= ugh, the authors=E2=80=99 view was that they might have created more, rathe= r than fewer documents. OLRv2 (and similarly NHDP) could be described in ab= stract terms a carrying certain information, then a separate document descr= ibe how to represent that information in 5444 format. Thus allowing alterna= tive carriage of OLSRv2 in some systems. But that was not the IETF way - it= was novel enough splitting 5444 off as a separate document.
=
On 13 Apr 2026, at 18:17, Donald Eastlak= e <d3e3e3@gmail.co= m> wrote:

Just=C2=A0speaking as = a WG participant, RFC 7181 seems pretty big and doing a bis of it=C2=A0 lik= e a big effort that would take some time. Meanwhile, draft-dearlove-manet-o= lsrv2-responsive seems pretty short and simple. I think the WG should consi= der the "responsive" draft separately. If it is approved and if a= n RFC 7181bis=C2=A0project was started, the changes in the "responsive= " draft could be rolled into a 7181bis.

Thanks,
Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D
=C2=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd =C2=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
=C2=A0= 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
=C2=A0d3e3e3@gmail.com

<= br>
On Fri,= Mar 20, 2026 at 11:30=E2=80=AFAM Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gm= ail.com> wrote:
I was very much discussing the 71= 81/ OLSRv2 situation, complicated by the splitting off of NHDP/6130. New pr= otocols should be in a number of pieces appropriate to their design. This i= s often one, but not always.

On 20 Mar 2026, at 14:16, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com&= gt; wrote:

=EF=BB=BF

Hi Abdussalam,

=C2=A0

>> https://github.com/OLSR/OONF

>> yes this is it=C2=A0=

=C2=A0

I can now confirm that this builds correctly and seems to do the right = things when run over simple networks. I will work on testing over more comp= lex networks.

=C2=A0

Thank you - Fred

=C2=A0<= /p>

=C2=A0

From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 8:43 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Cc: Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com>; manet@ietf.org List <<= a href=3D"mailto:manet@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">manet@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [manet] Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-resp= onsive-03

=C2=A0

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.

 

=C2=A0

Hi Fred,<= u>

=C2=A0=

and thanks,

=C2=A0

On Thu, Mar 19, = 2026 at 4:40=E2=80=AFPM Templin (US), Fred L = <Fred.L.T= emplin@boeing.com> wrote:

Abdussalam,

= =C2=A0

>> I tried to get an implementation that= was from the open source community but that implementation did not work.

=C2=A0

Was this the one you were looking at:

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0

https://github.com/OLSR/OONF=

=C2=A0=

yes this is it= =C2=A0

=C2=A0=

The mo= st recent tag from that distribution is v0.15.1 tagged on March 19, 2018. I= am unable to build from that tag due to compile time errors which seems a poor state for it to be left in. If there is another publicly-avai= lable OLSRv2 reference implementation I would be interested to hear about i= t, because it is not a good look for OLSRv2 to not have a publicly-availabl= e reference implementation *that works* for evaluation and experimentation by the community.<= /u>

=C2=A0<= /span>

Meanwhile, other MANET routing protocols such as OSPF-MDR in quagga and = Babel in free range routing are openly available for experimentation and ev= en semi-production service in a form that works. There is also B.A.T.M.A.N wh= ich I guess is becoming known as a functional mesh networking service. Ther= e are probably others too which I would be interested to hear about. What h= as been your experience?

=C2=A0=

yes agree,=C2=A0= it is important that we in IETF MANET WG look into the implementation of b= oth OLSRv2 and AODVv2, as these were the first routing that was needed by t= his WG, however, there was in past meeting interest by our WG that we use the implementations to check its stability and succe= ssfulness.

=C2=A0=

best regards,=

AB=C2=A0<= u>

_______________________________________________ manet mailing list -- m= anet@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to manet-leave@ietf.org

______________________= _________________________
manet mailing list -- m= anet@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to manet-leave@ietf.org

________________________________________= _______
manet mailing list -- m= anet@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to manet-leave@ietf.org
--0000000000003a0047064f7aae93--