IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR

Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> Tue, 30 January 2024 08:51 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 01508C18DBAC for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:51:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pPRzVpc0vreV for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:51:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x631.google.com (mail-ej1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4592AC18DBBF for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:51:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x631.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a29c4bbb2f4so369825866b.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:51:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1706604670; x=1707209470; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=LOh3+8R1tYGFv4kyzY8z9SQ0/IoF/RqNJDH7nxw2RNA=; b=fHhGYWe9h7cibZXbFkomXLWcI5bC3XVXZfERxa7BEpNBtPwOWb7q+wQxEqyx/6RjHD m5mrs2v6RFfUN6wdk4jgFWbAJ1B0yoX9Ne4er9S0gS9ft/MbPjRTerhvXf39D8K8G9tJ xt1cjMkeZG/eiHYo+snBs2c3jqd+T0gTSVHzXNz+8QdMkSmLDykAc9LO1sJ/RyGUbpxa eDNsJeaBAYFwYqkD+xSpS0i9WlbGvZgYr5YWANw7kxIJtXg8aWz9PNf294x4pgj07VTV YVj4JW2hoqEp7xVatZqSPZwWz8sUGp3rGOS+bcb+7lyyFGTVqK0RCyrIKf59rl7mpdQk QMVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706604670; x=1707209470; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LOh3+8R1tYGFv4kyzY8z9SQ0/IoF/RqNJDH7nxw2RNA=; b=DnMzrw0XXjYfvt2jjmVTqX8EMYcN5GdWc+tsMsfFmdsQlWoHGkX1tBHM5ZruD1ky9s OPkN+sH9lhoPwauiAmBJNqi3HLpTsHjcRe4cRc+dKf9/Og20nXAYMuLKo1o0c890SgOZ +B6ohISHZTCn+ty5TUkhLYYgiI/IK+xJnl9wPa97ZmQEG23sXASGs0TXam+nkYv122vw P3NPYrGNKkKFxMoTNWd694ndGj+SaiVPttpW6GipTj/eGoZOSvnuzW8WtQpEM0nP+b5H WlfYk2wLW1jhNyKamcvS2Z8WFuFJUSfO4oVcLWbDEdyTfzoVrhzIHrblN4LMCKV3JYE+ nn4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwmivgFPNYfgT2stYdmAczRrWiaBk0ffFmbS0o/riZ0WJGGl0CV 5SCDBf5FMXoMP5WWytDhpUXpXGUSP07HQHr2jm1eU2yo+hBQ0Rv8
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEXXdrX1IDWE4EXxtgFnMfckHLz7y9z+he4aheOPU/Sm5zLGO8HpDBvbyuqQBNTZry6oXOtJA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3cb:b0:a35:eaf5:4d88 with SMTP id c11-20020a17090603cb00b00a35eaf54d88mr2154835eja.57.1706604669724; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:51:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (82-132-226-203.dab.02.net. [82.132.226.203]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id zo11-20020a170906ff4b00b00a316ecc4badsm4843823ejb.56.2024.01.30.00.51.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:51:09 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\))
From: Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGnRvurt6R1y=ZSMNOmOEPF+FY4GYGzroek3ntt3024ASpVJuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:50:56 +0000
Cc: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>, "Adamson, Robert B CIV USN NRL (5522) Washington DC (USA)" <brian.adamson=40nrl.navy.mil@dmarc.ietf.org>, MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <86A7B91A-E3E6-4DBF-9D0F-2E2C58229237@gmail.com>
References: <CAGnRvuoAdGeuzESf4VgYVB2xkEBX=t+3Vm4BMn0q37OKx9_jAQ@mail.gmail.com> <34F68A6F-F4A3-4B9C-A4DD-549246154F67@nrl.navy.mil> <CADnDZ8_kDp__Gx8aCBdCmnH_5z9zq6yRSjnkUJB7bYyFs7FvtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGnRvurt6R1y=ZSMNOmOEPF+FY4GYGzroek3ntt3024ASpVJuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/3l8IniDimzbHpdH4X95FGdgExK8>
Subject: Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:51:16 -0000

RFC 5444 is mandated for use on the MANET UDP port (and IP protocol) by RFC 5498 and repeated in RFC 8245. Any other use is optional, but there’s no good reason to use it on the data plane.

There was an (or possibly more than one) experimental - I don’t believe it even made it to an ID, but was implemented and reported in at least one paper - use of OLSR for an SMF-like approach to multicast, intercepting the data packets in the IP stack, encapsulating them as a new OLSR message type, flooded using OLSR, then converted back to IP data plane at destinations. This was rather a hack and the SMF approach was to supersede that, keeping data in the data plane where it belongs.

(We did it at BAE Systems, I think NRL might have done something similar, and possibly Ecole Polytechnique/INRIA too.)

> On 30 Jan 2024, at 08:12, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:04 PM Abdussalam Baryun
> <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would like if possible an update/information in 2024 about SMF implementation or RFC6621 implementation regarding its use in OLSRv2 RFC7181
> 
> SMF is not used in OLSRv2... it's the other way around, the MPR
> results of OLSRv2 can be used in SMF.
> 
>> I suggest that the RFC6621 implementation must use PACKET BB (i.e. MANET Packet) RFC5444 if it is to be used with WG standard routing , because OLSRv2 RFC7181 is using RFC5444. Or is there other suggestions we can discuss?
> 
> I suggest you read RFC6621 again...
> 
> RFC5444 is used for MANET protocols... not for the data plane forwarding.
> 
> Henning Rogge
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email