IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] draft-ietf-olsrv2-multipath-09

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Fri, 01 July 2016 05:32 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 17C4912D17B for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 vkAuRK8QVksQ for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AD7412D151 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10942; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467351176; x=1468560776; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=vNWF63ywDTsSTvxM3rkbPNAo3VKMbSSERe/S8XjjStE=; b=URE5m3MvBBeRBQLqq2KDPOWQvleOU8NI4oPdQmk8V4MpMm+Hqe0td8Jc djm53NWJf/T/ki2D7bbBVivkE/LreWuPxjmYKj8jV/+17Y3a0BqFUU1As Fiww/v9VMkIkIgcdkPcvxlkOTDwQdkusYt6jGJvXwnOzzfS9jMU9Onqmt I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BvAgBc/3VX/40NJK1bgnBOVnytRIcPhQGBeyKFdgKBMzgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhE0BBQEBbAsQAgEIPwchBgsUEQIEDgWIFgMXDr9kDYQbAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWGKIF3CIJOgkOCM4J2gi8Fk1aFAzQBjDWCC48qiBWHcgEeNoIIHIFMboh0AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,555,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="124602224"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 01 Jul 2016 05:32:55 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u615WtHi022759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 05:32:55 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:32:54 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:32:54 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Jiazi YI <ietf@jiaziyi.com>
Thread-Topic: [manet] draft-ietf-olsrv2-multipath-09
Thread-Index: AQHR0yPr4AACWZ1mFkO8y3AHh0avDqADDcDS
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 05:32:54 +0000
Message-ID: <9E1B5776-D8D8-4697-9BF4-EA24A84EF8A7@cisco.com>
References: <9CC61969-5F6A-4F14-87C6-99B47080DDB3@gmail.com> <CAN1bDFz9AKg2y=ck_ue3SAwyWPafBLSBBbXQMcS-5OARHjeBVg@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923D1304@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CAN1bDFwPMAHKymyA5ASyRQWfMQ5ixer88jSbcOeunJm1nAGAtw@mail.gmail.com> <BBB23144-23BA-4D72-958D-8F1B8C949724@gmail.com> <CAN1bDFxixObUbKo7HErSS-QrrdMFzUfdSBJQrsbW1Yq+h7s2Xw@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923D1A4D@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923D1C19@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <ecaf7affc20c4f9088cbb33ebb7f6f53@VAUSDITCHM2.idirect.net> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923D1C44@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CAN1bDFyDamVA+NGj1XPEnF8ms13wCLxMRc7BW1_EOpuN7wL1WA@mail.gmail.com> <D391D9FD.1309C9%aretana@cisco.com> <CAN1bDFzbDvTcNHOX6Fx5f-7wu2pEf9raqDZDTXrLP2WM9y-nYg@mail.gmail.com> <D3929075.130AE7%aretana@cisco.com>, <CAN1bDFyT-VQibTX1zdfwRGrtp8=-eLQNuwGRwQ9YUmHYkdVwpQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN1bDFyT-VQibTX1zdfwRGrtp8=-eLQNuwGRwQ9YUmHYkdVwpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E1B5776D8D846979BF4EA24A84EF8A7ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/BZZJver6av0yoJOYTJztIue-y3k>
Cc: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] draft-ietf-olsrv2-multipath-09
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 05:32:59 -0000

Looks good, Jiazi.

I wonder if in the future we can create deeper bounds between an OLSR core and a RPL edge, make that a combined domain where SRH can be used end to end.

Maybe on occasion we can chat about the way RPL handles instances, which are like L3 VLANs.

Take care,

Pascal

Le 1 juil. 2016 ? 01:05, Jiazi YI <ietf@jiaziyi.com<mailto:ietf@jiaziyi.com>> a ?crit :

Hi,

Regarding the use of source routing header in IPv6 and the reference to RFC6554, we have contacted the 6man chairs.

The answer from Ole (one of the chairs) was that he didn't see why it can't be used, and suggested the experimental code points of the IPv6 Routing Types.

So in the next revision of the olsrv2-multipath, we will:

       - Use the experimental code point of IPv6 Routing Types for SRH.

       - Have a well scoped reference to RFC6554: for example, for SRH format, use section 3, for SRH processing, use section 4, etc. Other than that, the olsrv2-multipath would be self-contained.

       - Have a well defined scope of the use of the SRH: only the OLSRv2/MP-OLSRv2 routing domain.

Any other comments on the approach?

best

Jiazi

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com<mailto:aretana@cisco.com>> wrote:
On 6/24/16, 5:16 AM, "yi.jiazi@gmail.com<mailto:yi.jiazi@gmail.com> on behalf of Jiazi YI" <yi.jiazi@gmail.com<mailto:yi.jiazi@gmail.com> on behalf of ietf@jiaziyi.com<mailto:ietf@jiaziyi.com>> wrote:

Hi!

Of course, As a WG, the priority is achieving the milestones, but I don't think it would preclude having extensions to OLSRv2, which is part of the charter also. In fact, IIRC, during the recharter discussion, several extensions for OLSRv2 were proposed. The WG finished with using the term "The MANET WG is responsible for the maintenance of OLSRv2 [RFC 7181],
NHDP [RFC 6130] and the Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format [RFC5444],
and their extensions.", instead of listing possible extensions explicitly.

As I said: "To be clear: I'm not asking you not to do this work, I want the WG Chairs to prioritize appropriately..."  That's it!  If the WG wants to take this work on, I don't have a problem - it is with in the charter.  Let's just not forget about the other work we have...

The second part of the point I tried to make was, I think, more important:  extensions to IPv6 are not within the manet WG's charter, but they belong to 6man.  It would probably be more effective if the source routing work was in the Standards Track.  I'm assuming that Multi-path is just one use case for source routing, but there are probably more.  I also wrote: "[*] I doubt that 6man will want to put in an extension (even if it's already defied in RFC6554) for an Experimental effort.  I of course may be wrong and the Experimental nature may make it easier in their eyes to simply reference RFC6554."

Note that what I'm suggesting is not to put the Multi-path work in the Standards Track (that is a separate discussion) - but to justify source routing for MANET networks as a larger need (including multi-path, but bigger than that).

Thanks!

Alvaro.

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org<mailto:manet@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email