Re: [manet] comment on draft-rogge-manet-dlep-radio-band-03.txt
Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Fri, 11 March 2022 06:24 UTC
Return-Path: <hrogge@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 403933A0C21 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:24:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 0ErmG_iXSY99 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (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 50C6A3A0873 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id bt26so13387553lfb.3 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:24:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=avxn9qMWxhfPsM0NtcpT1mRo5ijgZucLv+fAWRoJOZk=; b=TFBxr7ePawdyUBO9WSXyARqggeFEj1VbIzFDTfFXBZsjv9/RJMGTPs2NPWEGIt9mHO iKBCsfDCzPx2Jo+HD9fNk8PCt+/4hk+GfkNNncuhrMUMr3xGiTUT9jgFZi+uxMQd/9lI I7Pkt0XrQ3eQSMLswbCl0ygevbXfDaPF6SsSOoNBB1CRWJIE3E/lLMHhhQ2kpozjb29o nAW9RjBcnaU58WC1kCYNzI2MBEr462focdyuHTE7dIAFrMQgNCVf2Svc3a24t34lwEFd m2nxssnA9kOVB/7+4s6YIZQbLi3qtJaWPNyZ1HpUk6yALeMoAWktK/E96FqxMiH2P0Jd Dffg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=avxn9qMWxhfPsM0NtcpT1mRo5ijgZucLv+fAWRoJOZk=; b=oGkWbolbM5vxePHRaVVSFQmjJSZHMEIzJJ+YQNvvLbOA1DiAtj74M8DXF67EyBurJr Pe9ns5LnyByjuvJqB4qyKyAXVOAf/JwrczX9j44WQ16yGQ3qyh+SXlca3ivznhtektgx Yiwk5/7sWkjNXeKgWPvS/oyE4TiZ6kH4qJOujBohw8qXV0Ubmw4N/Fg8CaZ5wcjNHEKV 6llVoHKhaB1uOMhgYcxxHCkab0OKd4+B2VdwESZqVEIbvfrXbWYXo2tXsWEfv2DFUJbg RXSXorAmqsdUOiYDUjgotWWYMgzWCzH3KuSM3QQ4/Hh0c9XeVvtMgAv9AGtyV6I+/5vO eopw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BaAFPfn1RSCTO5pPY+p38WBE0NTeGQlCExw2GQdSAo543hDfa gM0cK5FQ3ijzkwkRgATFjs1G+oB022iCrOdvfEY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxPU8ba9ZEXnUDkAuouOkkrpaI/lgX+Q8tx5Cxqewd5UJCTZYjO3YobBwF4GK9UtLC+LDSKJDZs2Dla1hWU1Rc=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5d2c:0:b0:448:31b8:e00b with SMTP id i12-20020ac25d2c000000b0044831b8e00bmr5083198lfb.19.1646979867877; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:24:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <dac36cefeefc49538b03d7b6b55c6d9c@tno.nl>
In-Reply-To: <dac36cefeefc49538b03d7b6b55c6d9c@tno.nl>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:22:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvuqvVcYnnm3V2r-E7K503KYZ+g0s2QH6uRQwFYXN9-44Xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl>
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/nweZ14IPWFdygLwq6G6zntqFGNI>
Subject: Re: [manet] comment on draft-rogge-manet-dlep-radio-band-03.txt
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 11 Mar 2022 06:24:37 -0000
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:00 AM Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't <Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl> wrote: > > Henning, > > [chair hat off] I have read this latest version and it looks good to me. I have one question / suggestion: What if the radio (or waveform active on it) is of the Frequency Hopping type? In that case, the modem (=radio) cannot meaningfully report a carrier frequency, but still can report bandwidth usage. Right now, I cannot think of an example of the reverse situation, in which the carrier frequency can be meaningfully reported, but the bandwidth cannot. However, I would suggest to use two of currently reserved Flag bits to indicate ‘Frequency Valid’ and ‘Bandwidth Valid’. What do you think? I thought about the frequency hopping problem myself and my first thought was "just report the hopping sequence"... but this is not useful because many radios today use pseudo-randomized hopping patterns. Whats about having an optional "hopping" Flag, which activates a second Bandwidth field that reports the range around the center frequency in which the radio is hopping? This would make the router able to "comprehend" what frequencies are used, e.g. for applying a frequency dependent policy or for estimating potential collisions between different radio technologies. In this case the "center frequency" would just be the average frequency of all possible hopping steps. Henning Rogge
- [manet] comment on draft-rogge-manet-dlep-radio-b… Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't
- Re: [manet] comment on draft-rogge-manet-dlep-rad… Henning Rogge