Re: [manet] Last call ending

Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> Mon, 19 February 2018 16:40 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 42F2E126DED for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:40:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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] 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 cs1R-oRTgVpZ for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:40:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x236.google.com (mail-it0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::236]) (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 2E83D1241F8 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:40:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x236.google.com with SMTP id n7so545369ita.5 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:40:19 -0800 (PST)
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=wkw9AWXhblZNvcCwKeSOXF8QJMXD89DUWMzMHypeytE=; b=IjdD85LdRjm1fh9HJ5FO+wLCoAeMoMfyZWSQTs1a4/DwXZJjcgbUOgCwYeRW0s5yI4 eTbUvzcd1KcPaeherak9toWTmMEI8IHIatSVjfbGtb7Q6krDMYi0nlFvya3+dY3Emnyu bJJKKvo/bS/OpTTqklhxaJaVYAAYTSvjoTuI+v/2P4ktvLviURB6OiwlyoQVFwB5AdNV ywhXUUKisKpnjB5ES1XDG6egCCZQGPJ3c9+32xO0l8N/Y7Jjq0C3NVc2+uYoOIHdKLtP OFi5Ykf89hUfDgaPBKxgjxOjqJ7aYkhoe+4XbpbzgqkLvhjWTXz5mZBE4cVsL2O0l+zn SaKg==
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=wkw9AWXhblZNvcCwKeSOXF8QJMXD89DUWMzMHypeytE=; b=K3U6R1E5zUbCW3UYhlBlEG3sdfnuhlnyNdMHvvdFlcwGsjFnvGjjGnVD+/TvExU2dz E/9oRfG006SkE8zqE7+EV1jVgiAgQ9gHnbe1+tjl1UZMUordmp/lYwS/5eMywjsYsAoz hdEgTqyiV/BF475uL4KMgnWt0WhF8TymBJScyY9RxvSlk3+WSsdBSJKYaaI2F8MdLz13 4sQyGUXOR4E1Au27L78tcRabkoNWMR+W54s5UKaXOT0nx1daUMOL9efaXQBsvmzIf/6z LflEPxBTJLDMviYgQPNLWA8na2n+z8ude7IccS+Bi5tl5Lve/z0D4dkeQttGEYfxCSIs fZNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBqyjNm7rLDwC21XDNVrZ0WJUUjRW0QD+byxv+MXeqbbq3iBjem 2hxMwJ0C7rGmJMvZvovFqPFM1eU+db0/vBcujOk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227zBZ/GBfuMoZUe0prHvKPBEVRHchD/6EG7L56r+ax2NNvVJcEnzDXy51kJHVUclefydxrlwraxHnyQZdDO9OM=
X-Received: by 10.36.8.69 with SMTP id 66mr19459314itc.132.1519058418555; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:40:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.162.79 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:40:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <097c3985-48d7-9584-da50-1ddf14524fa3@labn.net>
References: <CA+-pDCeA5z0+YE4yXYymkWo8vNthp2k6Pt9nHr32z+ApCLum_A@mail.gmail.com> <020E5EA0-7A6B-46D1-9363-640E3FBBA0ED@ll.mit.edu> <b4faeff9-6fce-cf6c-83a5-ed1db17430e3@labn.net> <B4268EF6-B15D-4C56-A5A1-9B3522ED7F79@ll.mit.edu> <16134a38478.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <AA080710-A519-442C-89D7-BADE0EBF030F@ll.mit.edu> <c49477df-40b0-6ccc-3c5b-2df92cec177e@labn.net> <B9FA19D1-F931-474E-86C4-2C3DFF050B1A@ll.mit.edu> <B9ABF95F-DF8E-4587-B11D-465AFD557E84@gmail.com> <097c3985-48d7-9584-da50-1ddf14524fa3@labn.net>
From: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:40:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CALtoyok-=p9=09Zz_7oZTwFzJ2H+EWvXcuE8Wf+mJqPvFnTZdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: "Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu>, Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>, MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140acc26e606b0565935978"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/aCP9JAttuJ1_aIbTNZH69YZh7Tw>
Subject: Re: [manet] Last call ending
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, 19 Feb 2018 16:40:22 -0000

Lou,

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:

> Hi Stan,
>
>
> On 1/29/2018 5:39 PM, Stan Ratliff wrote:
>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 5:26 PM, Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL <
>>> David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I tried to clarify Suppress Forwarding:
>>>
>>>   The Suppress Forwarding Action is used by a router to indicate to its
>>>   peer that multi-hop forwarding performed by the modem is to be
>>>   suppressed.  A router may request that multi-hop forwarding may be
>>>   suppressed on a device wide or destination specific basis.
>>>
>>>   A modem which receives the Suppress Forwarding Data Item in a Session
>>>   Update Message MUST suppress multi-hop forwarding on a device wide
>>>   basis.
>>>
>> This concerns me. Should the modem
>> a) silently drop traffic unless/until the multi-hop destination(s) become
>> single-hop again? (Bad plan, IMO) Or,
>> b) issue Destination Down for multi-hop destination(s), and re-issue
>> Destination Up If/when the dest is single-hop?
>>
>
> Stand note that the reference paragraph concludes:
>   Impact to destination hop counts are provided to the
>   router by the modem as described above.
>
> and above it says:
>  ...
>  Destination specific impact resulting from the processing of a Hop
>  Control Data Item in a Session Update Message is provided via
>  Destination Down and Destination Update Messages.  The modem MUST
>  notify the router of each destination that is no longer reachable via a
>  Destination Down Message. The modem MUST notify the router of any
>  changes in Hop Counts via Destination Update Messages.
>
> Is this sufficient?
>

Yes, I'm good to go with that text. Apologies for any noise.

Regards,
Stan




> Thanks,
> Lou
>
>> Regards,
>> Stan
>>
>> For data traffic originating from the modem's peer router, the
>>>   modem MUST only send such traffic to destinations that are one hop
>>>   away.  Any data traffic received from the modem MUST NOT be resent to
>>>   another modem.  Impact to destination hop counts are provided to the
>>>   router by the modem as described above.
>>>
>>>   A modem which receives the Suppress Forwarding Data Item in a Link
>>>   Characteristics Request Message MUST suppress multi-hop forwarding for
>>>   only the destination indicated in the message.  Sending of traffic by
>>>   the modem is modified as described in the previous paragraph, except
>>>   that the suppression only applies to the specific destination given in
>>>   the Link Characteristics Request Message.  Results are provided as
>>>   described above.
>>>
>>> Does that fit what was meant?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/29/18, 1:37 PM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>     ...
>>>     David, (all)
>>>     I think I've addressed all comments in the latest push to the repo.
>>> I'm
>>>     enclosing below a specific diff of the commit that addresses your
>>>     comments, please take a look and let me know if you see any issues
>>>     remaining.
>>>
>>>     Note I have clarified processing when hop control is in a
>>>     characteristics change message and changed/simplified in the Session
>>>     request massage case - to improve processing consistency as you
>>>     requested.  Please see the specific changes below and let me know
>>> what
>>>     you think.
>>>
>>>     I also have one comment in response to your comment below.
>>>
>>>     On 01/29/2018 09:36 AM, Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL wrote:
>>>
>>>> That’s why I was suggesting a radically different mechanism for the
>>>>> router
>>>>> to express its wishes, e.g., by ordering the destinations in terms of
>>>>> importance, and letting the modem work that information into its
>>>>> topology
>>>>> control scheme however it can.  The router’s most important
>>>>> destination may
>>>>> be best reached over a 3-hop link.
>>>>>
>>>>>     To me this is a different extension with different objectives. I
>>>> certainly
>>>>     would be interested in reading that extension.
>>>>
>>>> It has very similar objectives to the Direct Connection/Terminate part
>>>> of this extension, but I agree that it doesn’t fit well in this extension.
>>>>
>>>     I think an extension that does this as well as let's a router
>>> understand
>>>     some of the resource impacts of a manet topology (with out exposing
>>> the
>>>     full topology ala ospf/isis-te) would be very interesting.  I
>>> actually
>>>     had some related discussion on this in singapore.  If you have a
>>>     proposal on this or are interested in collaborating on such, I'm very
>>>     interested in this!
>>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>
>>>     Lou
>>>
>>>     Changes from:
>>>     https://github.com/louberger/dlep-extensions/commit/100217f5
>>> a8a3e35c6608b4a88428b20b14854f8f
>>>     commit 100217f5a8a3e35c6608b4a88428b20b14854f8f
>>>     Author: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
>>>     Date:   Mon Jan 29 13:20:09 2018 -0500
>>>
>>>          Multi-hop: Address remainder of Dave W. comments
>>>              - Clean up Hop Behavior processing.
>>>                Send only one message when link characteristic change
>>> results in
>>>                     a change/unreachable requested destination
>>>                Destination impact due to Hop Control Data Item in a
>>> Session
>>>                     Update Message always provided via a Destination
>>> Down or
>>>                     Destination Update Message.
>>>
>>>     diff --git a/multi-hop/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension.xml
>>>     b/multi-hop/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension.xml
>>>     index 5fc2845..f81e3be 100644
>>>     --- a/multi-hop/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension.xml
>>>     +++ b/multi-hop/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension.xml
>>>     @@ -110,7 +110,8 @@
>>>         words, each hop represents a transmission and the number of hops
>>> is
>>>         equal to the number of transmissions required to go from a router
>>>         connected modem to the destination's connected modem.  The
>>> minimum
>>>     -  number of hops is 1, which represents the transmission by the
>>> router's
>>>     +  number of hops is 1, which represents transmission to destinations
>>>     +  that are directly reachable via the router's
>>>         locally connected
>>>         modem.
>>>       </t>
>>>     @@ -176,7 +177,7 @@
>>>             A value of zero (0) is used to indicated that processing of
>>> a Hop
>>>             Control action, see <xref target="sec-di-hcontrol"/>, has
>>> resulted
>>>             in a destination no longer being reachable.  A zero value
>>> MUST NOT
>>>     -      be used in any message other then a Destination Announce
>>> Response
>>>     +      be used in any message other then a Link Characteristics
>>> Response
>>>             Message.
>>>           </t>
>>>         </list>
>>>     @@ -189,7 +190,8 @@
>>>         connectivity to a particular destination, or in multi-hop
>>> processing
>>>         on a device wide basis. A router can request multi-hop reachable
>>>         destination be changed to a single hop.  A router can also
>>> indicate
>>>     -  that the modem terminate connectivity to a particular destination.
>>>     +  that the modem terminates a previous direct connectivity request
>>> to a
>>>     +  particular destination.
>>>       </t>
>>>       <t>
>>>         The Hop Control Data Item MAY be carried in a Session Update
>>> Message
>>>     @@ -218,20 +220,19 @@
>>>         notify the router of each destination that is no longer
>>> reachable via
>>>         a Destination Down Message. The modem MUST notify the router of
>>> any
>>>         changes in Hop Counts via Destination Update Messages.  Note that
>>>     -  normal DLEP processing is not otherwise modified by this
>>> document, this
>>>     -  includes the generation of Destination Down messages.
>>>     +  neither Destination Down or Update Message SHOULD NOT be sent for
>>> the
>>>     +  destination MAC address contained in the Link Characteristics
>>>     +  Response Message.
>>>       </t>
>>>       <t>
>>>         A modem that receives the Hop Control Data Item in
>>>         a Session Update Message
>>>         SHOULD attempt to make the change indicated by the data item
>>>     -  for the associated destination MAC address, when carried in a Link
>>>     -  Characteristics Request Message, or all destinations, when
>>> carried in
>>>     -  a Session Update Message. Once the change is made,
>>>     -  or fails or is rejected, the modem MUST respond with a Link
>>>     Characteristics
>>>     -  Request Message containing an updated Hop Count Data Item.  Note
>>> that
>>>     -  other destinations can be impacted as a result of the change and
>>> such
>>>     -  changes are reported in
>>>     +  for all known destinations.  Once the change is made, or fails or
>>> is
>>>     +  rejected, the modem MUST respond with a Session Update Response
>>>     +  Message with an appropriate Status Code.  Destination specific
>>>     +  impact resulting from the processing of a Hop Control Data Item
>>> in a
>>>     +  Session Update Message is provided via
>>>         Destination Down and Destination Update Messages.  The modem MUST
>>>         notify the router of each destination that is no longer
>>> reachable via
>>>         a Destination Down Message. The modem MUST notify the router of
>>> any
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list
>>> manet@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>
>>
>