Re: [manet] DLEP Metric drafts

Henning Rogge <> Mon, 13 September 2021 07:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B773A0BB0 for <>; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DzaCX55WrGeF for <>; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 269713A0BAD for <>; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l11so18984624lfe.1 for <>; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UeyaS5qQN6RaTnsYB15Lz5KtSrnzOFQOVFvgu0Psswc=; b=e2uPG30ECg65NJYypgA72Jekg9daJIIpsZU12PPYaVjZEDKhcwVmW1ulpchK1Ufqm1 K4qy7cC3cU6KdlthuCXF+zoRfde+kppzuI4mcl+/82QjfFfwWwqV8/9Y5ksWC1ely499 j1bHAwVz4C4Y0bUQul4Xm4Fx3gFNCXy7WI2imKHpTD7jgwJk4jYfd4+Uu1Hp1jRfqH7B 6Pal2ZDQU2pjWNtmYJ4MOPHIrsMSjorB/ZRowo4Nyg7TiKNzaBeSgHUgvFy9Ga8hk11t yVq0enhlg2ITyb3k5PgPtrpokfyzHsyL+aYmhkQdXi1+evdYMv6kuQFuSVTQ7swSomVw J+Rg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UeyaS5qQN6RaTnsYB15Lz5KtSrnzOFQOVFvgu0Psswc=; b=dS0a8C3UrBZhYXG17EZgMZJ5l6mvG9jzICiBtWtokM0hqDn8qD7rHmX/PZhMYuoDVb qCLtkQbpgyAl2QWkusHEn6ktSLezbyzy4D/4ag5omG8JRg/528hpV72QmJmaiqIrQ6th wk0WdZfoKK3NATEfYmVF20qmEdo2UFf0NwHGNmsL7/YERrPYy5ks/eiAPyH75tKrI58e fCkt24y5LiXtR0z5ZT8GK9/h92/lN/CYAyaTmZWvaD6YqtELbvp3NUoPzL2oopmNU7EG JsSFV71tfBrsn638SZ/zx5YQJGdp3y3Ut98PEgnHu4m4yR8i9aGiYtYXfjvXbZVDg8/y kCoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532NQHBD6J3RLJxysYZs0dq+DqT3283605YyKKFKqXoGm41U9uuj PcfpGQ6DYjzq/sq3QA87aSi7vyWMgG87qW5X4o594409uBI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJysc1Y+hYdy0feaygckCzhnANMtDeeA/UrPy2TnHLQdhFRlvYn4Zg0Vqz/j5PwH0xr5H6Ll1WswSv1tK5z6Wpc=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5ded:: with SMTP id z13mr8075990lfq.428.1631516817513; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Henning Rogge <>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:06:25 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Cc: "Rogge, Henning" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP Metric drafts
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 07:07:03 -0000

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:01 PM Abdussalam Baryun
<> wrote:
> Hi Henning,
> In the meeting I showed my interest, but one of the draft I explained/wanted to know the packet format to be added in draft (as you did not prefer to use manet-packet), my reason was that frequency band draft was not important to me only if I have a clear packet format between not only radio-router but also neighbours as a unified format related to frequency selected. However, for the other two draft I support totally.

Just as a comment... my drafts are all DLEP (RFC 8175) extension
drafts, so they have to comply to the DLEP packet and message
format... packetbb (RFC 5444) is the data format for NHDP and OLSRv2,
which does NOT apply to RFC 8175. The discussion about what data
format we (as the MANET WG) want to use ended with publishing the RFC

> I suggest that the draft includes the use cases or the importance of using it, adding some text to show advantages, other than proposed by the original standard 8175, as what is missing in rfc8175. As for the link quality draft, how we can compare between it and the use of RFC8175 section 13.18 and 13.19.

DLEP 13.18 and 13.19 define the messages to request the radio to
change into a new configuration, but they need TLVs to tell the radio
WHAT to do. Just as the "Current Data Rate (Transmit)" TLV can be used
with DLEP 13.18/13.19 to request a different bitrate, the proposted
frequency TLV (as an example) could be used to tell the radio to
switch to a different radio channel on demand. This could be used
(again, as an example) to evade a detected jamming attempt or just
make a preplanned (and group coordinated) switch of radio bands for a
whole mesh network.

Henning Rogge