Re: [manet] Last call ending

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 19 February 2018 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 A5CCA1277BB for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:38:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 ZS8j_9efUrxE for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:38:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C116212422F for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw4 (unknown [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A42175DC8 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:38:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id CleP1x0052SSUrH01leSdM; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:38:26 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=G85sK5s5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=Op4juWPpsa0A:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=NEAV23lmAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=NdFI5I3zeenAOd4uZbgA:9 a=LbRk24-v1xpUbwDx:21 a=f87SK3c3R3nihrGw:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Yz9wTY_ffGCQnEDHKrcv:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=n4LK05Do3f6s9uNyExWO0tdUQsfJj9EuB1E0vdQKI2M=; b=XuoskdNLD2Pw78jsaUXJwF4Dnz 8s8W74ivGKhV3qZJQ8H6ShSvJE0FuNFtYgLt//UKgUtan4vY5JqLauDoofnW2ciChqTnS5VBQ9u4B 02mnzSfbZeayiw+KLrXmUHSsm;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:45390 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1ent8g-0036u9-Q2; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:38:22 -0700
To: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Cc: "Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu>, Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>, MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
References: <CA+-pDCeA5z0+YE4yXYymkWo8vNthp2k6Pt9nHr32z+ApCLum_A@mail.gmail.com> <020E5EA0-7A6B-46D1-9363-640E3FBBA0ED@ll.mit.edu> <b4faeff9-6fce-cf6c-83a5-ed1db17430e3@labn.net> <B4268EF6-B15D-4C56-A5A1-9B3522ED7F79@ll.mit.edu> <16134a38478.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <AA080710-A519-442C-89D7-BADE0EBF030F@ll.mit.edu> <c49477df-40b0-6ccc-3c5b-2df92cec177e@labn.net> <B9FA19D1-F931-474E-86C4-2C3DFF050B1A@ll.mit.edu> <B9ABF95F-DF8E-4587-B11D-465AFD557E84@gmail.com> <097c3985-48d7-9584-da50-1ddf14524fa3@labn.net> <CALtoyok-=p9=09Zz_7oZTwFzJ2H+EWvXcuE8Wf+mJqPvFnTZdQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <509a0d80-d60c-bd1b-1936-fe7a7c73214f@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:38:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALtoyok-=p9=09Zz_7oZTwFzJ2H+EWvXcuE8Wf+mJqPvFnTZdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1ent8g-0036u9-Q2
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:45390
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 6
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/HI1BwFWcA-jPDa_QYbkx4L07UzE>
Subject: Re: [manet] Last call ending
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, 19 Feb 2018 21:38:38 -0000

Thanks Stan.


On 2/19/2018 11:40 AM, Stan Ratliff wrote:
> Lou,
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net 
> <mailto:lberger@labn.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Stan,
>
>
>     On 1/29/2018 5:39 PM, Stan Ratliff wrote:
>
>
>         Sent from my iPhone
>
>             On Jan 29, 2018, at 5:26 PM, Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL
>             <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu
>             <mailto:David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu>> wrote:
>
>             I tried to clarify Suppress Forwarding:
>
>               The Suppress Forwarding Action is used by a router to
>             indicate to its
>               peer that multi-hop forwarding performed by the modem is
>             to be
>               suppressed.  A router may request that multi-hop
>             forwarding may be
>               suppressed on a device wide or destination specific basis.
>
>               A modem which receives the Suppress Forwarding Data Item
>             in a Session
>               Update Message MUST suppress multi-hop forwarding on a
>             device wide
>               basis.
>
>         This concerns me. Should the modem
>         a) silently drop traffic unless/until the multi-hop
>         destination(s) become single-hop again? (Bad plan, IMO) Or,
>         b) issue Destination Down for multi-hop destination(s), and
>         re-issue Destination Up If/when the dest is single-hop?
>
>
>     Stand note that the reference paragraph concludes:
>       Impact to destination hop counts are provided to the
>       router by the modem as described above.
>
>     and above it says:
>      ...
>      Destination specific impact resulting from the processing of a Hop
>      Control Data Item in a Session Update Message is provided via
>      Destination Down and Destination Update Messages.  The modem MUST
>      notify the router of each destination that is no longer reachable
>     via a
>      Destination Down Message. The modem MUST notify the router of any
>      changes in Hop Counts via Destination Update Messages.
>
>     Is this sufficient?
>
>
> Yes, I'm good to go with that text. Apologies for any noise.
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
>
>     Thanks,
>     Lou
>
>         Regards,
>         Stan
>
>             For data traffic originating from the modem's peer router, the
>               modem MUST only send such traffic to destinations that
>             are one hop
>               away.  Any data traffic received from the modem MUST NOT
>             be resent to
>               another modem.  Impact to destination hop counts are
>             provided to the
>               router by the modem as described above.
>
>               A modem which receives the Suppress Forwarding Data Item
>             in a Link
>               Characteristics Request Message MUST suppress multi-hop
>             forwarding for
>               only the destination indicated in the message. Sending
>             of traffic by
>               the modem is modified as described in the previous
>             paragraph, except
>               that the suppression only applies to the specific
>             destination given in
>               the Link Characteristics Request Message.  Results are
>             provided as
>               described above.
>
>             Does that fit what was meant?
>
>             Thanks,
>             David
>
>
>
>             On 1/29/18, 1:37 PM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net
>             <mailto:lberger@labn.net>> wrote:
>
>                 ...
>                 David, (all)
>                 I think I've addressed all comments in the latest push
>             to the repo.  I'm
>                 enclosing below a specific diff of the commit that
>             addresses your
>                 comments, please take a look and let me know if you
>             see any issues
>                 remaining.
>
>                 Note I have clarified processing when hop control is in a
>                 characteristics change message and changed/simplified
>             in the Session
>                 request massage case - to improve processing
>             consistency as you
>                 requested.  Please see the specific changes below and
>             let me know what
>                 you think.
>
>                 I also have one comment in response to your comment below.
>
>                 On 01/29/2018 09:36 AM, Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL
>             wrote:
>
>                     That’s why I was suggesting a radically different
>                     mechanism for the router
>                     to express its wishes, e.g., by ordering the
>                     destinations in terms of
>                     importance, and letting the modem work that
>                     information into its topology
>                     control scheme however it can.  The router’s most
>                     important destination may
>                     be best reached over a 3-hop link.
>
>                     To me this is a different extension with different
>                 objectives. I certainly
>                     would be interested in reading that extension.
>
>                 It has very similar objectives to the Direct
>                 Connection/Terminate part of this extension, but I
>                 agree that it doesn’t fit well in this extension.
>
>                 I think an extension that does this as well as let's a
>             router understand
>                 some of the resource impacts of a manet topology (with
>             out exposing the
>                 full topology ala ospf/isis-te) would be very
>             interesting.  I actually
>                 had some related discussion on this in singapore. If
>             you have a
>                 proposal on this or are interested in collaborating on
>             such, I'm very
>                 interested in this!
>
>                 Thanks,
>
>                 Lou
>
>                 Changes from:
>             https://github.com/louberger/dlep-extensions/commit/100217f5a8a3e35c6608b4a88428b20b14854f8f
>             <https://github.com/louberger/dlep-extensions/commit/100217f5a8a3e35c6608b4a88428b20b14854f8f>
>                 commit 100217f5a8a3e35c6608b4a88428b20b14854f8f
>                 Author: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net
>             <mailto:lberger@labn.net>>
>                 Date:   Mon Jan 29 13:20:09 2018 -0500
>
>                      Multi-hop: Address remainder of Dave W. comments
>                          - Clean up Hop Behavior processing.
>                            Send only one message when link
>             characteristic change results in
>                                 a change/unreachable requested destination
>                            Destination impact due to Hop Control Data
>             Item in a Session
>                                 Update Message always provided via a
>             Destination Down or
>                                 Destination Update Message.
>
>                 diff --git
>             a/multi-hop/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension.xml
>                 b/multi-hop/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension.xml
>                 index 5fc2845..f81e3be 100644
>                 ---
>             a/multi-hop/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension.xml
>                 +++
>             b/multi-hop/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension.xml
>                 @@ -110,7 +110,8 @@
>                     words, each hop represents a transmission and the
>             number of hops is
>                     equal to the number of transmissions required to
>             go from a router
>                     connected modem to the destination's connected
>             modem.  The minimum
>                 -  number of hops is 1, which represents the
>             transmission by the router's
>                 +  number of hops is 1, which represents transmission
>             to destinations
>                 +  that are directly reachable via the router's
>                     locally connected
>                     modem.
>                   </t>
>                 @@ -176,7 +177,7 @@
>                         A value of zero (0) is used to indicated that
>             processing of a Hop
>                         Control action, see <xref
>             target="sec-di-hcontrol"/>, has resulted
>                         in a destination no longer being reachable.  A
>             zero value MUST NOT
>                 -      be used in any message other then a Destination
>             Announce Response
>                 +      be used in any message other then a Link
>             Characteristics Response
>                         Message.
>                       </t>
>                     </list>
>                 @@ -189,7 +190,8 @@
>                     connectivity to a particular destination, or in
>             multi-hop processing
>                     on a device wide basis. A router can request
>             multi-hop reachable
>                     destination be changed to a single hop.  A router
>             can also indicate
>                 -  that the modem terminate connectivity to a
>             particular destination.
>                 +  that the modem terminates a previous direct
>             connectivity request to a
>                 +  particular destination.
>                   </t>
>                   <t>
>                     The Hop Control Data Item MAY be carried in a
>             Session Update Message
>                 @@ -218,20 +220,19 @@
>                     notify the router of each destination that is no
>             longer reachable via
>                     a Destination Down Message. The modem MUST notify
>             the router of any
>                     changes in Hop Counts via Destination Update
>             Messages.  Note that
>                 -  normal DLEP processing is not otherwise modified by
>             this document, this
>                 -  includes the generation of Destination Down messages.
>                 +  neither Destination Down or Update Message SHOULD
>             NOT be sent for the
>                 +  destination MAC address contained in the Link
>             Characteristics
>                 +  Response Message.
>                   </t>
>                   <t>
>                     A modem that receives the Hop Control Data Item in
>                     a Session Update Message
>                     SHOULD attempt to make the change indicated by the
>             data item
>                 -  for the associated destination MAC address, when
>             carried in a Link
>                 -  Characteristics Request Message, or all
>             destinations, when carried in
>                 -  a Session Update Message. Once the change is made,
>                 -  or fails or is rejected, the modem MUST respond
>             with a Link
>                 Characteristics
>                 -  Request Message containing an updated Hop Count
>             Data Item.  Note that
>                 -  other destinations can be impacted as a result of
>             the change and such
>                 -  changes are reported in
>                 +  for all known destinations.  Once the change is
>             made, or fails or is
>                 +  rejected, the modem MUST respond with a Session
>             Update Response
>                 +  Message with an appropriate Status Code.
>             Destination specific
>                 +  impact resulting from the processing of a Hop
>             Control Data Item in a
>                 +  Session Update Message is provided via
>                     Destination Down and Destination Update Messages. 
>             The modem MUST
>                     notify the router of each destination that is no
>             longer reachable via
>                     a Destination Down Message. The modem MUST notify
>             the router of any
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             manet mailing list
>             manet@ietf.org <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>             <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>
>
>
>