IETF Logo Mail Archive

[manet] Thoughts on draft-dlep-lid

Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Thu, 07 September 2017 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
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 43A2F132703 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <wFokyTfImX4w>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Improper folded header field made up entirely of whitespace (char 20 hex): X-Spam_report: ...that system for details.\n \n Content previ[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wFokyTfImX4w for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de (mailguard.fkie.fraunhofer.de [IPv6:2001:638:401:102:1aa9:5ff:fe5f:7f22]) (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 0438C126D0C for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufsun5.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.2.5] helo=mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1dpuVS-0003gk-22; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 12:57:58 +0200
Received: from srv-mail-01.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.11.16] helo=srv-mail-01.gaia.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1dpuVR-0000BN-V8; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 12:57:57 +0200
Received: from [10.71.67.24] (128.7.89.212) by srv-mail-01.gaia.fkie.fraunhofer.de (128.7.11.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:57:55 +0200
To: manet@ietf.org
From: Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <a5f491d1-b094-a797-c9dd-2fcf0afe5e07@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 12:57:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [128.7.89.212]
X-ClientProxiedBy: srv-mail-02.gaia.fkie.fraunhofer.de (128.7.11.17) To srv-mail-01.gaia.fkie.fraunhofer.de (128.7.11.16)
X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.99.2/23787/Thu Sep 7 10:35:05 2017) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de
X-Scan-Signature: 7099e5c0d5ab5062723c81c460487660
X-Spam_score: -1.0
X-Spam_score_int: -9
X-Spam_bar: -
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "mailguard.fkie.fraunhofer.de", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: I had some time to look at draft-dlep-lid and there is one thing I am wondering about. I wonder if leaving out the MAC TLV is a bit too tough on many DLEP implementations, we are talking about the "primary key" for the neighbors. [...] Content analysis details: (-1.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a shortcircuited rule -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-Spam-ASN:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/UHz2pz5wSAXEJnDxva4vDYPmirg>
Subject: [manet] Thoughts on 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: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:58:03 -0000

I had some time to look at draft-dlep-lid and there is one thing I am 
wondering about.

I wonder if leaving out the MAC TLV is a bit too tough on many DLEP 
implementations, we are talking about the "primary key" for the neighbors.

Whats about adding a "IP hops" TLV instead, which tells the router how 
many IP hops a neighbor is away?

Default value would be zero (briding distance), but routing radios would 
report something like 2 (two routers in between, one on each radio).

This value might also be useful later for "multihop routing" radios.

Henning Rogge
-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Zanderstrasse 5, 53177 Bonn, Germany
Telefon +49 228 50212-469
mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email