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]
>
>
>