Re: [manet] New DLEP extension drafts

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Stan Ratliff <[e-mail]> wrote:
> My 2-cents worth...
>
>
> I agree with Rick here - this is pretty much like the announcement of
> Layer-3 addresses and subnets. If an implementation is going to support
> that, some OTA transmission is implied, and required.

What is even the advantage moving "router to router" communication to DLEP?

I can see the point of IP address propagation, especially on radios
without multicast support. Without the unicast IP of the other side
you cannot reach it.

But for supporting services putting it into DLEP is no advantage at
all... you could easily just let the routers exchange the information
directly.

> If, as you say, "Even if the only service announced is mDNS, and mDNS is
> then used..." - why not *assume* that mDNS is present, and go for it?
>
> I've gone back & forth over the notion of service announcements. I think
> we're going to get significant pushback from the IETF that there are already
> multiple protocols for service announcement, and we're just re-inventing the
> wheel for the 47th time.

That too.

> Having said that, I'm interested in being able to transmit *some* additional
> information at Destination Up. For example, consider a military deployment
> (I only use it because I've seen this implemented, and can articulate the
> problem). There are some vehicles that are equipped with LoS mesh radios;
> and there are also a few equipped with the mesh radios and a satellite
> terminal/dish for reach back. I'd like some way for one of the
> satellite-equipped "reach back guys" to be able to communicate via DLEP on
> the LoS mesh radio that "I have reach-back capability". To me, this
> information would fold into things like selection of a "Designated Router"
> for OSPF, or an MPR for OLSR. This is something of a "capabilities" TLV,
> where a "capability" (e.g., the reach back) is not necessarily a part of the
> radio being used. Another "capability" would be to somehow announce "I'm
> plugged into a reliable, 24/7 power source, so battery consumption isn't a
> problem". In both of these cases, they enhance the node's ability and
> willingness to act as a traffic relay.

Capability might also include "need unicast traffic for datarate selection".

Henning