Re: [manet] Mail regarding draft-dlep-lid

Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> Mon, 05 June 2017 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ratliffstan@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 4B7EF129B3F for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 SXZz7tcYmnna for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 09:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (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 711B3129B16 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 09:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id r63so81705514itc.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 09:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wAYRVNk8zA4sq6Le6lmjsNDId7aKkLJMKTTYcI8GG9A=; b=Fqvdsqxox8FyhgGEvVhBd/q7BFmiB6j1eF0uFUwoJNedbUFn7WfSXHrtqxK0jow5Kz 4GwZV8FaTwxyznntahwsNMVC0nZ+Prh9DdaK9X+GNC+rBQr2b4J70QAAa2iE1xMhuwAL Yuz3qFg4f0ip2IrX+7u16ztClzrNM+t4nonaPZsV/2L1YJMT/qPHHWjOZiz/q//AbPq2 a72lPW2bw8pH9B5a/gi0LTaVfe/Fyl+rg6prc539zU37qy6i+csyalN2EOtYeFY0xB4q BrNbBykj3hvMW16lVgQodA0YLksP/A6vpIQ11abzpt9ged78VfZqxUA6XcTI8MW3f8Nc 0mqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wAYRVNk8zA4sq6Le6lmjsNDId7aKkLJMKTTYcI8GG9A=; b=qy0HNhPvNaK1zaTf50YbK7W9tzg4bdhP8+SBQ+R0iixmBLN8bgJ8MApL6/SOTA8RJj UScMT6TG838FxoCz1PFAFSz7eLfxprDjcSyNhxb5jFWDEpKjFerdY0kHa8ocaoDvqkD3 4dsjtS//WpQdnKx6QzjiB4ev2LYlH7du+mxhCKz3MJB39ifjwXh1CIZGhq0p5mXV4QgO luiUhq207F8T5pOCvN923+gysvlbcGI+av1PfyA8RF9tuVDb7dIpotn291KMq0i3fnDM nMjM2ovvCDb7XZeD2j7o59FlLX4kkQMx5fCQtJdN2lyrAss+nJtGwkqHOSdNqvI3dh4g uPhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDaBdOu48zwk1ZBJvnWwMNgGteJIGG45LE1LLrTqXYhCrc8HudL 2yWCK51XmXbybd/qT9Di/yw0I9PnDkBE
X-Received: by 10.107.139.214 with SMTP id n205mr10762801iod.178.1496679232720; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 09:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.27.205 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 09:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1496676769.3788.60.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <63448cdd41fa4c94a44a390dd10848a1@MLBXCH18.cs.myharris.net> <1496242619.3129.19.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <61e159c5594246d8afa42b5ee5cda557@MLBXCH18.cs.myharris.net> <CALtoyonckmMUzLJtR=R5tw5TJNCi=2DXxXmvb+hugARmkOeQ9g@mail.gmail.com> <1496664069.3788.31.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CALtoyokHwgnoR19Zw_BKDbhaRpx2bzguwZawwngzro4Qf6=3=Q@mail.gmail.com> <1496676769.3788.60.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
From: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 12:13:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CALtoyokRc0EWLP7D3RyfcZ57WTbTvsGXUPiSnrYMgBaYTTVvFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Cc: "kmorga07@harris.com" <kmorga07@harris.com>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05b602025c24055138ca98"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/SbEU4dJIhX48aBq-FwDukRBDol4>
Subject: Re: [manet] Mail regarding draft-dlep-lid
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, 05 Jun 2017 16:13:56 -0000

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com
> wrote:

> Stan,
>
> Comments inline...
>
> On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 09:58 -0400, Stan Ratliff wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftwa
> > re.com> wrote:
> > > Stan,
> > >
> > > I think you're over-complicating this.  Given a Data Item is a TLV,
> > > then as long as the lengths are consistent on a per-session basis,
> > > I'd
> > > be happy letting the modem implementer decide on the length.  As
> > > far as
> > > the router is concerned, it really doesn't matter.  Zero-padding
> > > fixed
> > > length fields seems a bit unwieldy...
> > I think some more is required. The consistent length is important,
> > because I can see a router implementation wanting to use the LID as a
> > search key in, for example, an AVL tree. Fixed-length keys are
> > required there.
>
> Okay, I'll agree with you here - consistent LID lengths make sense.
>  And, yes, I can see your argument that knowing the size beforehand
> does help with hardcoded value fields in search data structures.
> Although a malloc equivalent shouldn't hurt too much - hopefully no-one
> is writing routers in ADA.
>
> > And let's consider a failing case - At Destination Up for the first
> > "link", the modem builds a TLV with length 4 and hands the router an
> > integer. At Destination Up for a second link, the modem builds a TLV
> > with length 6, and hands the router a MAC address...
>
> Again, I agree.  If a modem announces the first LID with length 4, then
> all further LIDs (for that session) MUST be length 4.  Note however
> that one can mix and match LIDs with MAC Address Data Items.
>
> >
> > What then? If you "kill" the Destination, then which one? Or, in
> > other words, which LID was "right" - the integer LID, or the MAC-
> > based LID? Or, should the entire Peer Session be brought down (which,
> > as we've already agreed, is an awfully big hammer)?
>
> I think we are agreeing still: mismatched LIDs = Invalid Data status
> code and Terminate.
>
> >
> > My thinking was (and still is) - if you're going to call for
> > "consistent" LIDs (length-wise), then you either have to explicitly
> > state what that LID size is (and possibly be prepared to negotiate
> > the LID size), or allocate sufficient "real-estate" to cover all the
> > possibilities.
>
> I'll try a counter-argument:  In core DLEP, a MAC address can be 6 or 8
> octets - you don't know which until you get one, and I'm not sure if we
> specify if you are allowed to mix and match.  I suggest that LIDs
> should follow the same precedent.
>

It's not exactly the same, though. Here's the relevant text:

13.7.  MAC Address

   The MAC Address Data Item contains the address of the destination on
   the remote node.

   DLEP can support MAC addresses in either EUI-48 or EUI-64 format
   ("EUI" stands for "Extended Unique Identifier"), with the restriction
   that all MAC addresses for a given DLEP session MUST be in the same
   format and MUST be consistent with the MAC address format of the
   connected modem (e.g., if the modem is connected to the router with
   an EUI-48 MAC, all destination addresses via that modem MUST be
   expressed in EUI-48 format).

   Examples of a virtual destination would be (1) a multicast MAC
   address or (2) the broadcast MAC address (FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF).


The difference is that the type of MAC is enforced by the connection type
of the modem - so the router implementation *does* have a-priori knowledge
of the MAC length.



> I'm not immediately dismissing the suggestion of a "My LID length is X"
> Data Item for use in Session Init, but it could be seen as 'clunky'.
>
> The only other way I can see is to lift the restriction on LID
consistency, other than "they cannot clash". Then, you have to define how
"clashing" is determined (for interoperability). For example, "LIDs of
different length are to be compared assuming right-justify, fill character
0x00 to achieve equal length). Or something like that.

Regards,
Stan