IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-lid-extension-01.txt

HvFK <hvfk62@gmail.com> Wed, 07 February 2018 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <hvfk62@gmail.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 0434E1201FA for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:43:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 qJcTRfNzAVWd for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:43:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 BF9091200C1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:43:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id x4-v6so21223848wmc.0 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:43:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:mime-version:to:cc:from:subject:date:in-reply-to :references; bh=eFEqLK2gcacrkDL8+fD2ZWUIXu3vLVciSzESXrr6uB0=; b=Us9CRo4LdcN2WsLf/e452emMunqRZCDjgZHfOqrslvdUNLN9EgDmkN0spRI0EuWmF9 2HvlFTGAe3TQ3IvCM0BmGMeLXDcDE1bNKANxjoEjHS+gF/kHHYeigLmEbOTC3y2HL+Yd Q1h2dJ6T9mCNuIhg91nW4vZVNTKohakTKxv1PoynFQhFs18zcizXPdWcRssSVhdnDIaG +Mh27znfcqz3Yk1J7dSlIaFjVS3p2/7ZZRLupYDRHwPE98AS7JBPpQJIlZebsewZuzHX pCCOtNp56yzl3rhlEgbUZzM5QPFipZQ+6HEPRzFKBbKhyyfFpvVdTCZjcAy7MJTX3RM8 Gjug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:mime-version:to:cc:from:subject:date :in-reply-to:references; bh=eFEqLK2gcacrkDL8+fD2ZWUIXu3vLVciSzESXrr6uB0=; b=kntuY13Rt37L9w+rADvci/aR904I+2NDodzzPesDQ3E8ssiu77aiRu3stDKR5TvYAl YsPNKa6Zqw7rV69nHmyRpApMZ6H3qYNqAqAtIGYBLLIFAWThK7iCf0jQ8Fg+JtsmTJZC 8q28/teuc+XpPsyVBkh9Vx8ol4rDAfkS5eqUuqirJ4XCRE8TwC+YLa3jqEVf7QWGP0p3 c4TVFF8qBEgpQaicRwK9+gUvcqQehRVFYRfW0hsVk8Pl2hGgGn2x5IzavsmHb07HiwFq LPJK4xC9ZCCtqR7XPZSkyftn4zd5rTaxBJQ7tnVE+hdSe8ihacjKWv0SWTarzb0AB0+o K8lA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPA3fpFBT7ppNBe79B/d1ZveaVrfxxzcp08QZkI/S/XScWGECKvx pbLOZq+S/eCw1DBQtZtltNY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226kLfaksMy202OU8W2huP/58A44Wgi4JwglWVKlWK0NsSsk7FUEmfM/MuRKLViAEgNucsJueQ==
X-Received: by 10.80.194.146 with SMTP id o18mr7384197edf.67.1517989402317; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:43:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [100.73.138.137] (ip-109-41-194-185.web.vodafone.de. [109.41.194.185]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s23sm724624edm.15.2018.02.06.23.43.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:43:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5a7aae19.97f4500a.3f698.4774@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>, Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Cc: "hrogge@gmail.com" <hrogge@gmail.com>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
From: HvFK <hvfk62@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 08:43:21 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8-pjtGaq=QRLOXStz9Zi1Gfa+n+33bZadGC=uJ9MF0SEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <151732120050.27516.9349844420176741896@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAGnRvuo0dXFdJcjvnbed216+Fu54sV2GYDQOP1hT+xuv3PpZWQ@mail.gmail.com> <1517831785.8344.5.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CAGnRvupu-79BaAW-2vuNnB5Bs_eCr9HaH-Je_CvLfvYo2WL-VA@mail.gmail.com> <1517836460.8344.6.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <5a7886e4.2394500a.3b85e.bf5f@mx.google.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801D32F4793@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CADnDZ8-pjtGaq=QRLOXStz9Zi1Gfa+n+33bZadGC=uJ9MF0SEA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_CD53923B-9311-40B3-AF1E-1F9797615152_"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/JbFzG4O8bjaR9J9VcWqLN8jyNow>
Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-lid-extension-01.txt
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: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 07:43:26 -0000

Good Morning everybody,
usually a picture says more than a thousand words, but pictures do not really fit into RFCs....
Let me try a brief use case: a IP Router is connected to an LTE infrastructure via the EPC. The connection is supported by DLEP and called local. Several LTE modems are connected to this infrastructure over the air interface (LTE RAN). Attached to the LTE modems are again IP Router supported again with DLEP and called remote. In that case and with core DLEP the MAC data item would be the local one and the optionally IP data item the remote one. This Situation is a violation of core DLEP and won't work correctly. With LID this is turned valid as each remote side is represented by one unique LID, the respective remote IP, but all of them with the same local MAC.

This is my understanding and a real use case I've to deal with. Please rephrase or comment if necessary.
Regards, Georg 

----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
Von: "Abdussalam Baryun" <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Gesendet: ‎06.‎02.‎2018 10:05
An: "Rick Taylor" <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Cc: "HvFK" <hvfk62@gmail.com>; "hrogge@gmail.com" <hrogge@gmail.com>; "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-lid-extension-01.txt

Thanks Rick,


On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> wrote:

Sorry for the top-post, damn Outlook.
 
One thing I have considered is whether adding some worked examples to the text has value.  I have had to explain LIDs a couple of times to people who haven’t immediately realized that the extension solves their problem.  It’s always an issue with IETF drafts that they drill down to the raw protocols, often not explaining the problem space well (or perhaps it’s just my writing style).
 
My thoughts are, perhaps a section covering: “So you have a Layer 3 modem”, and “So you have a LTE/WiFi AP” and you want DLEP.  Obviously I hate writing text, I’m an engineer, but if people think it has value, I could find the time.
 
Opinions?


I think the applicability statement section is helpful to mention solutions or use cases. However, users always can contact authors of RFCs, or IETF WGs,


AB

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email