Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06
Jiazi YI <ietf@jiaziyi.com> Tue, 20 October 2015 20:00 UTC
Return-Path: <yi.jiazi@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D06C1AD0EA for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 wAj3yEUeCWAR for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (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 B2A631ACE76 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicll6 with SMTP id ll6so44944640wic.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=U/tdAyATvI71/9ySh9pPrmM+J4cj5HwbHMCpEpkpFDU=; b=n2jqL48TwVNTzvo7bxb0da2yJdV8H3qzT7qFxObGQBIraVp4oqhlVwDkAfk1jI/9XX Lz1VWbX360rNtub8e2pJ0Yge31ftLjGM4rYm//10vHeSAJiHrqS6O516xcS+V8E7fRAH 3qP5316k8T+MRM7S5s2PAL9P5jF5qLbjOeuriz0raFoikGJoiYUU5jsZDEMi3I5A0Cbs 5xSl9/OLTNoYfJXsAJXUPvsgx8lzt4JxW6/O2PMz63PWhH3hhWgnF6ccYNnDKEG0qGdU nTuKKBIMCz2ciO50LWG8FaWCU8Cu9FjJSufNzbO84HMmFuWlRrvRtzXUE9Zys67oP1F/ paxw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.184.166 with SMTP id ev6mr6597587wjc.125.1445371208211; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: yi.jiazi@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.43.7 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALtoyong8HEHPTj1somckR=nkfeaR+0D58uKviqOLpGAk+3bAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALtoyomExzo2iGNJBd-tqufOL1+8KBd=cUeTksxFOimF=YO5YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN1bDFyoeSCcRX3Lrde=q18Z+axCKHwGiB_if+bxVQNo7aYH4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK=bVC_ZNFWk1ozjquPVb+3h_wPYstPzxDSQheB2BQzALSsCbg@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D6BAA4D02@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CAN1bDFwO3DDLtrH=+dmRDdLfLq39noMQpsPSHsed8507Vnnj1A@mail.gmail.com> <3EBFC7E9-BFE7-43D1-9DD2-12248D78F0B9@gmail.com> <CAN1bDFyJ3Tmy=dx+qOyCLqKTW01OE=_dqL40ZTWMPcbhPXqiHQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6B67FC5-7577-4639-B088-D260CA0675A4@thomasclausen.org> <CALtoyong8HEHPTj1somckR=nkfeaR+0D58uKviqOLpGAk+3bAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:00:08 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: fwh2aF2BepMsEAaXdSwB5EFJtl8
Message-ID: <CAN1bDFwLXWabw+XoWJ2JSdEfmP2mCWbu1q8mQAVydowoYiqW0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jiazi YI <ietf@jiaziyi.com>
To: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bae49326f263905228eb59b"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/5KcOhwo-Sxn8nl2DC4usoq8GqZY>
Cc: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>, Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com>, MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 20 Oct 2015 20:00:12 -0000
Thanks very much, Stan. I agree with the decision, and am happy to work with the WG to have the issues resolved. cheers Jiazi On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > Based on this discussion, and an email or two between myself and Justin > and Ulrich, here's the plan going forward: > > I've just moved the document back to "WG Document" state. I think there is > general agreement that there are issues to be addressed, and that the doc > isn't yet ready for publication. We have a good discussion going here on > the list; hopefully that discussion will lead to a resolution on all > issues. At that point, we can reissue WGLC when the WG consensus indicates > that the doc is ready. > > Other opinions? Questions? Flames? > > Regards, > Stan > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Thomas Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> > wrote: > >> Just two quick points... >> >> On 20 Oct 2015, at 02:02, Jiazi YI <ietf@jiaziyi.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >>> >>> Sorting out MPRs and interworking can't be fixed with just a SHOULD. >>> There isn't even a proof on the table that making it a MUST works. This is >>> not good enough to proceed. >>> >>> No, creating a TC is anything but mandatory. It's mandatory under >>> certain conditions, which may not apply. >>> >> >> Specifically, a TC is mandatory only if having a non-empty MPR-selector >> set, or a non-empty Attached Network set -- or, having recently had >> non-empty such sets (in which case empty TCs are mandated for a bit to >> "purge stale information"). >> >> A case where an OLSRv2-router will not send TCs would, for example, be >> with MPR_WILLING == WILL_NEVER. And a case where it likely would not would >> be a router with WILL_NEVER+1, in a dense network. >> >> Again, this misunderstanding is fundamental to whether the protocol will >>> interwork with basic OLSRv2. >>> >> >> The point I want to make is: >> - The SOURCE_ROUTE TLV are sent over both HELLO and TC messages. >> - I'm skeptical to making it a MUST, because even we don't consider it >> at all, it won't bring any negative impact to the network. Although a >> router with this extension will find less SOURCE_ROUTE enabled routers in >> that case, it can still work perfectly with other OLSRv2-only routers like >> a normal OLSRv2 router. >> >> >> Gotta consider this, at least, these ways: >> >> "Will the presence of an OLSRv2 router in an OLSRv2-MP network break the >> -MP network"? >> >> "Will the presence of an OLSRv2-MP router in an OLSRv2 network break the >> OLSRv2 network"? >> >> "Will an OLSRv2-MP router be able to function in an OLSRv2 network"? >> >> "Will an OLSRv2 router be able to function in an OLSRv2-MP network"? >> >> And then, of course, what happens if it's not "a single" but "a bunch of" >> .... >> >> Thomas >> >> I haven't had time to consider the source routing. But if it's being done >>> by IP, just say so and don't confuse matters here. >>> >> >> Agree. >> >> >>> This draft is, I'm afraid, not in a suitable state for a WGLC. It needs >>> to go back, have some major changes made, and re-enter pre-WGLC discussion. >>> >> >> The authors are, of course, willing to discuss related issues with the WG >> and have them appropriately resolved. >> >> >>> >>> (A point I've not previously made is that we have multitopology now out >>> of the IESG and heading to be an RFC soon. I'd not be happy with this draft >>> if incompatible with that, also a discussion worth having.) >>> >> >> I don't see the how the multipath draft would be incompatible with the >> multi-topology draft. >> In fact, those two drafts are two different approaches to solve different >> problems. This olsrv2-multipath draft tries to make use of multiple >> parallel paths to send packets. It can even make use of the multiple >> topology to build multiple paths -- this is, of course, not tested yet. But >> we wrote it as a possible experiment to do in the "Motivation and >> Experiments to Be Conducted" section. >> >> best >> >> Jiazi >> >> >> [snip] > > >
- [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Stan Ratliff
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Jiazi YI
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Jiazi YI
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Jiazi YI
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Thomas Clausen
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Stan Ratliff
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06 Jiazi YI