IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] DLEP LID lengths

Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> Mon, 19 June 2017 14:34 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 6D5701314F2 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, 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 wc82Gh1q2u-n for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com (mail-io0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]) (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 303D01314ED for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id t87so65667628ioe.0 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:34:04 -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=5JgdkSZz0QjxQLhPhiFhZTKY56EioGvGx7hELwdXsR8=; b=lJPNzOUNk57w5D9OUM/p7beFE97EyOSkWED3/o/3IbDAjHf2B49p+qlote0aacD3/u rRCcYQ6o1IlrDhQ7/kKOts2fKmXhTozdwxJEgeB7pme3bu7enByBtqCuMVr9Zj5437mT josZf/M2JWtGoxs1HiJssCBgfSDU/Rw/Ikypf7KcKqU7ZeUzIHK6ok+SADgKy0ph5FYD dfRDfo9507Ik9CdvcvwIHw+MjuaW+uin+XL2XqTv9sQqn8AkB2StKOMbkSZxwjYe8gmD 7vaxpM0vKdtWkwqGSpp8PCe+t7V+tuUzoIpxinus+PAa2X4wAMm2kKgvS7B2Qi9PV4cS pdtA==
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=5JgdkSZz0QjxQLhPhiFhZTKY56EioGvGx7hELwdXsR8=; b=aplYhraIHROiA/g8/vRuy43y91/h+QNgvbUubG1qI4aYk/jGfLb23X2HGut2tUDKGE 4RsU/d/jqhzuR8ICRAtFxLT2iIrnmbcem8tPy38pKsZcfASmt+IYpXQKR7M+rvV8PvS9 AKt8Y9Fmoapo7bA1nney+4NgOiaY0rM6Flgvy+VoUnOgaDYlzjSZvSHqTPxQjt8r6Asj JLN4RmCkmJAZOwZ9Ip0priqIX4GsJBoDjQ6CjXAed6NV+lyoa+031wrFKItHjCqjz4Pl NfFP6Y7aE+TQeDePJNgJVeQ90inpCXFoMuFK1Xrg5iBmwK06kEFfqTk2NQ77R+cJ297W w8sQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxo8p0av1Y5Iq5CpT9zi46x/LzDk+WGCh2HVNO0lNYCHhtJzIxr uSgf73t4ihGux+9VZDTzcWrwC4Nc5g==
X-Received: by 10.107.130.150 with SMTP id m22mr23884883ioi.140.1497882843508; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.27.150 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1497882042.2674.34.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <63448cdd41fa4c94a44a390dd10848a1@MLBXCH18.cs.myharris.net> <1496242619.3129.19.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <61e159c5594246d8afa42b5ee5cda557@MLBXCH18.cs.myharris.net> <CALtoyonckmMUzLJtR=R5tw5TJNCi=2DXxXmvb+hugARmkOeQ9g@mail.gmail.com> <1496664069.3788.31.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CALtoyokHwgnoR19Zw_BKDbhaRpx2bzguwZawwngzro4Qf6=3=Q@mail.gmail.com> <1496676769.3788.60.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CALtoyokRc0EWLP7D3RyfcZ57WTbTvsGXUPiSnrYMgBaYTTVvFA@mail.gmail.com> <1497882042.2674.34.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
From: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:34:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CALtoyomskw-WUEuRE-Zy+9tKvChbJaf--M4hhyHY_fdjWLp+mQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Cc: "kmorga07@harris.com" <kmorga07@harris.com>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113fb680cd7ae20552510605"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/oxkIyfAAtbbNtm07sQMXGNsTANc>
Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP LID lengths
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 Jun 2017 14:34:06 -0000

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Rick Taylor <
rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> I've been mulling this over.
>
> How about the LID length MUST be the same as the MAC, so it's up to the
> advertiser of the LID to bit pack?
>

Does that mean that if a modem is using EUI-64 MACs, then the LIDs are 64
bits as well? I'm OK with that, I just think we need to state it.
Also, I think there should be a sentence about LIDs not being duplicated
(and, in fact, that a LID MUST NOT duplicate an existing MAC, or
vice-versa). I'd think that a duplicate LID on Destination Up would be
rejected, and the Destination would not be seen as Up (Destination-level
error, NOT a peer session level error).


>
> This seems to work with existing use cases, and avoids the need for LID
> length negotiation.  The only down-side I can see is that 2^48 LIDs is
> a common maximum, but that seems plenty currently.
>

Yeah, I'm thinking that 1 modem supporting 2^48 links will cause insanity
well before DLEP has a problem... ;-)

Regards,
Stan


> Thoughts?
>
> Rick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email