Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12: (with COMMENT)

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 19 May 2017 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@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 1F60D12E058; Fri, 19 May 2017 05:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 q7Xi3N5vvwGk; Fri, 19 May 2017 05:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22e.google.com (mail-qt0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22e]) (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 97B8C12E855; Fri, 19 May 2017 05:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f55so56833409qta.3; Fri, 19 May 2017 05:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
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=lBcKovzUteCfwB9TnDKI+pVgEYen7H+hMTcuwp6zjJo=; b=qXhzvo+2nDbQAxRyLkZCk7CUY8gp6D5qMfC/atyqsvZIdBNi/7EKONyBUNwUWS3sDd kT1QRNZCikfyrtBnqqwsvo/Ny8Oi2IU9XCjiSj29JB0JHlzi9Ir0An2IBkP1JRgcatNp x3329QdASTTVB8TbZQQLPnmVVm0bKrDR5ueNyWTngmsplx9GK95D+Gae5e1aP0yVuIcz TUkRJHZ3/Saw02vvEXJ+iKv64p0QBTdXMKQr8b6W52x5OiEcFuCm4Vc4h8s66cfWTuxn lfrktvy1bWbHBQJ5v6NSCwjXz9MkdgAfX24ujco/o6JoOkNfbDCkSlNzZBfmR7xcPjIv ODvg==
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=lBcKovzUteCfwB9TnDKI+pVgEYen7H+hMTcuwp6zjJo=; b=Roxue8S91dqbEZEAaHClIvdPaMsP055wTGTEGwh588p92AkdS3Lpzex+JG9chqwV0W NDeWC+HeymUVRTcX1+HLuHiiIJc8737IUSahRc8Fjex2FkICwbXI+xapwmtWmwTsQecG 6dA8X59BGw6bsYEsUZs2VXuAzOqr0TIhXtIqrXIuy5s7CkHfrfMecaihzpbNNJpU/0tV A7llj5HzLgwBSHEF/iek7SfwzaW26hs2/IhPG48qMzGUf3/5jNuUQos5J5LvKs3BKt2x 7hHBeBCs+H2GXxEEuW1I6TbKelO8kLa8/g/NGMF7z9FnXtjsF3E4t09HE8JaOu1OdgL/ 6IVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAaEeSBPwe9YBuc7T3frOBMh9KeeeoUc7WcX4AEhinHyApbWKUE Y7R7i4tjy5d8I61OisybWfUE3xYgRXWV
X-Received: by 10.237.37.81 with SMTP id w17mr9757989qtc.8.1495197998770; Fri, 19 May 2017 05:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.88.52 with HTTP; Fri, 19 May 2017 05:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D4DAE22E-3813-43C3-BC70-1C93C8DD15CA@jiaziyi.com>
References: <149438454593.28420.3155308625575149497.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0A715A18-8D1D-4759-8AD9-4CC2A8D238EB@jiaziyi.com> <CADnDZ8__Y6AX1ogLafY4bp-OShTg6MFkgjPZUspJu86w9P-WUg@mail.gmail.com> <D4DAE22E-3813-43C3-BC70-1C93C8DD15CA@jiaziyi.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:46:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8-54wOzpQf-n5Ws+5+AHNS9OwamcYV228M1a+xam1aEtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jiazi Yi <ietf@jiaziyi.com>
Cc: manet <manet@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath@ietf.org, Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group <manet-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141099e95f0ba054fdfe923"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/hOIyRWVdtecoot9ASPiJPN0SYVw>
Subject: Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12: (with COMMENT)
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: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:52:34 -0000

Hi Jiazi,

Routing processes are in all  routers (do you mean other than that?), so
what you mean by internal, do you mean there is routing process outside the
router???, or as you may mean external process from routers. I think all
processes happen in the routers. I am sorry that I got confused,,,,

AB

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Jiazi Yi <ietf@jiaziyi.com> wrote:

> Hi AB,
>
> As Chris said, reactive/proactive approach has nothing to do with
> stability you mentioned. It’s totally a router’s internal process — the
> outsiders won’t even know the difference.
>
> best
>
> Jiazi
>
> On 14 May 2017, at 13:51, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> This protocol can be mixing between reactive and proactive processings
> which is not stable which is not reliable, see the draft mentions:
> Routers in the same network may choose either proactive or reactive multipath
> calculation independently according to their computation resources.
>
> I think the protocol must only support one calculation for each path,
> making mixed reactive and proactive per path is not stable. While we know
> that OLSRv2 is a proactive protocol so if we use source routing as in this
> protocol it should do only reactive calculation that makes it stable in the
> dynamic-networks like manet. IMHO, using reactive and proactive
> independently seems strange in manet routing environment. I advise to look
> into conditions of its theories because it seems that this multipath
> routing in for fixed-wireless-networks not for manets.
>
> AB
>
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Jiazi Yi <ietf@jiaziyi.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Suresh,
>>
>> Thanks very much for the comments.
>> Alvaro raised the same issue before — we will use the type 3 header in
>> the next revision.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Jiazi
>>
>>
>> > On 10 May 2017, at 04:49, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
>> > draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12: No Objection
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > COMMENT:
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > I find it really strange that this document uses an experimental Routing
>> > header type codepoint (254) but requires the processing to be same as
>> the
>> > RPL Routing header (Type 3). Is there a reason things are done this way
>> > instead of just using the Type 3 header as is?
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > manet mailing list
>> > manet@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>
>