IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] packetbb update idea

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Mon, 03 July 2017 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@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 964E5126C2F for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 3ZXWS_Qe0SUe for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (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 0E91C131716 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 32so150114323qtv.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 11:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OOuBkGJfpOZ8DF5U8Ch9tyBL3MVr9TIxASPMi/T2GyE=; b=l0dapF31iGGxvLY0wVZoLpS++wwG1m+B1Zhu+G/DoF9c5rVfdzTofGr+9vBeuPknkL DplQs84EATRVyrfw+F+JOfIdLVna8A7Xl8xXjytF/vxsNkB0I3q++dMCG0s3Z1hflzkw VPpJpm/kydNGTG2QtGRrTd03b8I7495Z2tdIcr2BUjiRRuihKP2Tu4TATz8vuTstmtV9 LuAzg4uWAmb2J+pyVGc6NAbdugZxrpey+rmckGYfUoJu+ju7UnGDHOBOQqQpFF4qox16 PYIo9kx7yxJ6mGsTDJ/8W7nWr9raOovjNqyw/vCu1VrSI/p5sVn30IR0fNcRQa143uN0 JX4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OOuBkGJfpOZ8DF5U8Ch9tyBL3MVr9TIxASPMi/T2GyE=; b=koyrofxNh7RbaF+2eNPO3g6oGifdjJa/BWUoGyQAUOopx0RG8cnn/AFiwmrUyoObV0 4yeSxuH6z+/bKEU8a0bLFWliuLCjm/TSCgLueSeXLGQ/H78UeoERZOzIQRNW8L1b3fRs De974E7UAcAeZagT6dRBUKnHhDGv3zDgakHTb2y/Y00slChu5OUkTyKvypUedULFZbTY WX2G6GfZhnOO8YeLlu75LpeFFdlpEdT6kRKkA4AXuAE0R1dy0KhRz2xB/O3HFSfLLU6o bIkntCKUc2Fdr/e6/5uZQFbzO5pOjjAGwc59LkIBdxFnIXazIY9AUEgY9j4ANryc+tPj BJFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzCEgYRapkMj1xOSkZDWWZMKQCkcbiyEBxf9if5LyLMVG9VQDPl rx9mkv4BNDBYpzlV2ZEjOo8zb2LnG87F
X-Received: by 10.237.45.226 with SMTP id i89mr25838983qtd.194.1499108204226; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 11:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.37.250 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+-pDCcnYTW=7JS6HPv1CdM9Va5XNL6BT+UHCrQODg5kB8Sa8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+-pDCcfXm-Vf11FZ+KmAk-ZMYBdTZ-+kPebNkd4KtEa8eEX4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAGnRvupo2wOLcb+zfM7B43y3UYCYJE8c=2Xmdj6pEoZv52zeQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-pDCcnYTW=7JS6HPv1CdM9Va5XNL6BT+UHCrQODg5kB8Sa8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:56:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvurutSfKFmkD_1ZuMy5s+sXuGnKR-3GuhDWXz2uz8dgZng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/4utlfJ05m5VvCwQzfXk5YzqKdcM>
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 18:56:50 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email