IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] DLEP discussions @ IETF102

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Thu, 12 July 2018 10:46 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 8A7F61310C5 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:46:05 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 fGIez944nsKu for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (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 48E3D1310C2 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id d22-v6so15153060qkc.8 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ORuf4usuPM/S3WZxucDJNEky/M2VLS+IGmD+584sixk=; b=Sa06XPlC1n7M39QJiSrRqAlVQH2FDLPd+tra9w1TzuXsuB8o8F103orK9j02o8mQf0 WSemukD/GCV48e3qvfLVfW3JiCJ7UQzIo7V7fwi7MbjvizqbSw7pEWKtb92lhlUjxrzj P9MS5FWvY69UwRUl2feUonvgbUj0ZnKb+lxbcVL+POtW3yqyrPcwt/kWPjlxRL/c6ELB x9Mi7jRzqZDMBBg6WwKao6F0VQXNC+GW8Sw/fuXQOHEvl3Eu5nFbcXgj11J8btuAyEhu DcDM2QnrICoReSINfoXkAKJg+XGIN/UDNefRkXZU2b7lKENFA8WemsWPK/nOQAz0cNxn B1tA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ORuf4usuPM/S3WZxucDJNEky/M2VLS+IGmD+584sixk=; b=OjSe9V2cvuOnfdoZ5fBnr182YIRbAsLS3ObmTE/0b+1/gRqlBpoglkLMGWAne/ejNY K7bMtnZ8tYW9b+pGetRN3ysYsRjx8o6TNtpgZ3FqEhUpQdf4bO4lcrveUECFEogbFdBq qlpYak9IIFOKQstUt4DtiESFztdCKQpG5w8o76Oy7pBTCyUZIqR0tU89Cz2kBwYadKdK 2NU5Rbqn4uPPGrgHMV9GcCaY4SeBJN9Tbv3Ygx1jcJJuruNyGDajPWJ7zjREobucHZox CUKe78Yf0QjXyk/xpflZ0pi/XcJzD02IyN9sEuDZ8I87jxGllRJb6q8TlfIDq+ziycsT OFXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHOWOk7XpOsFFSC6/Z56MbaTwHO/WQVEvRtSj0/nWKkx+pmF4Z3 MJmmys7z+FaJfI+GrbXzeZIBG5CDyGvR+eHvmUM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcDuey4SXH6SqwDPW8Aql1OGXWRrvxAL14m+19lfQyXrImfrBfk+KdkUZzTK50fFEFkm9KZioWU/i5F9GNBjFY=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:5c81:: with SMTP id q123-v6mr1176947qkb.8.1531392361178; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0b369e1f-ca7b-54fb-b473-610fef95630f@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <0b369e1f-ca7b-54fb-b473-610fef95630f@labn.net>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 12:45:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvupKZoi=J8opsPbbsNMa66U9jmS-N6=zf9t5_TFBBM-bbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/ohb7Df8iV6EZYndpBNCKMUnidDE>
Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP discussions @ IETF102
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 12 Jul 2018 10:46:06 -0000

Hi,

I wonder if someone has found a good way to implement the router flow
control part (in Linux) without using the "Pause" mechanism (which is
normally a pretty crude thing to use)...

Most traffic classes don't allow setting absolute amounts of bytes
that are allowed to be transmitted.

Henning
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:33 PM Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
>
> Just as a heads up - We plan to present a couple of DLEP topics in CCAMP
> next week.
>
> The interesting part is the credit based flow control draft
> reorganization and request for adoption call on IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit
> Window Extension draft (draft-berger-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension)
> -- I still have no idea which WG would do such an adoption call (MANET
> or CCAMP...)
>
> The less interesting part is a brief update on our DLEP extensions that
> are post LC:
>
>      DLEP Latency Range Extension
>      draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-03
>      DLEP Multi-Hop Forwarding Extension
>      draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-05
>      DLEP Control Plane Based Pause Extension <-- which had a 1 LC
> related change discussed on the list
>      draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension-04
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lou (and co-authors)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email