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

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

the major use case I see for this draft is the support of multiple
classes of service on the radio, e.g. prioritization on the link
layer.

(with the help of some other TLVs) this draft will allow the radio to
announce multiple options to reach a direct neighbor and announce how
the router can select them.

Henning Rogge

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:43 AM, HvFK <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
> ________________________________
> Von: Abdussalam Baryun
> Gesendet: ‎06.‎02.‎2018 10:05
> An: Rick Taylor
> Cc: HvFK; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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
> <[e-mail]> 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
>