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 >>> >> >
- [manet] Last call ending Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Rick Taylor
- Re: [manet] Last call ending MATTY, Steven [UK]
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Stan Ratliff
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Stan Ratliff
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Stan Ratliff
- Re: [manet] Last call ending Lou Berger