IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] DLEP IP addr conflicting add/drop

"Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu> Thu, 20 October 2016 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=91011d661b=david.wiggins@ll.mit.edu>
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 74E24129657 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.628
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 nLh3eifZOiy8 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from llmx2.ll.mit.edu (LLMX2.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C99129969 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local) by llmx2.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id u9KFK3g7007634; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:20:05 -0400
From: "Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu>
To: "Ratliff, Stanley" <sratliff@idirect.net>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DLEP IP addr conflicting add/drop
Thread-Index: AQHSKt9NGA5PXwBDm0+fM2tXgnkt6KCxbuCAgAAHeIA=
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:24:28 +0000
Message-ID: <D42E58E5.3495%David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu>
References: <D42E4E9A.3491%David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu> <3292b0e7eb8d409d8f511af284c171e0@VAUSDITCHM2.idirect.net>
In-Reply-To: <3292b0e7eb8d409d8f511af284c171e0@VAUSDITCHM2.idirect.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.25.59.174]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3559807467_227346684"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-10-20_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=inbound_notspam policy=inbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000 definitions=main-1610200274
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/YlYarNNwwVnqkUkG44KyWtbTiDw>
Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP IP addr conflicting add/drop
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 20 Oct 2016 15:24:43 -0000

I could argue either way, but I'm fine with Continue.

David

From:  "Ratliff, Stanley" <sratliff@idirect.net>
Date:  Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM
To:  David Wiggins <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu>, "manet@ietf.org"
<manet@ietf.org>
Subject:  RE: DLEP IP addr conflicting add/drop

> David, 
>  
> The current thinking amongst the editing team is that these types of ³logical
> inconsistencies² will, indeed, result in an error ­ the message should be
> acknowledged, but with a Status Data Item indicating the error. We¹ve gone
> around and around as to whether the error should be fatal or not (e.g. is the
> mode ³Terminate² or ³Continue²). Our thinking is that the mode should be
> ³Continue². 
>  
> Any other opinions on that?
>  
> Regards,
> Stan
>  
>  
> 
> From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wiggins, David - 0665
> - MITLL
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:36 AM
> To: manet@ietf.org
> Subject: [manet] DLEP IP addr conflicting add/drop
>  
> 
> What should happen if a DLEP message contains an IPv4/6 Address or Attached
> Subnet data item with Flags=Add, and also contains another data item with the
> *same* IP address/subnet, but with Flags=Drop?  I don't think the handling in
> this case specified.
> 
>  
> 
> I think this condition should result in a DLEP error, since it indicates that
> the sender is quite confused.
> 
>  
> 
> This is similar to my message to the list on August 4, but this is a different
> case.
> 
>  
> 
> David
> 
>  
> 
> This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
> information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
> and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
> or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
> recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
> in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
> copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email
> in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email