Re: [manet] [Int-area] SMF and intarea-ipv4-id-update

FWIW, Briscoe's doc won't help here. It is intended to find other ways 
to use the ID field for atomic packets (as defined in ipv4-id-update), 
but those bits would be as flags, not as a whole space that could be 
used for a given purpose.

Joe

On 3/30/2011 5:34 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
> There are other ideas around, that could be applicable in MANETs.
> You could check draft-briscoe-intarea-ipv4-id-reuse
>
> Teco
>
> Op 30 mrt 2011, om 14:21 heeft Charles E. Perkins het volgende geschreven:
>
>>
>> Hello Teco,
>>
>> Is it possible that the SMF usage is not vulnerable to
>> the pitfalls noted in the intarea draft?  Usually we
>> don't picture NAT boxes in the MANET routing paths...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Charlie P.
>>
>>
>> On 3/30/2011 5:01 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
>>> Hi Joe,
>>>
>>> The current text in intarea-ipv4-id-update is "no current deployments
>>> are known". I read this as a statement in general. Then, it is not correct.
>>> I am fine with discouragement of usage of systems that use IP_ID for DPD,
>>> but such systems are around.
>>>
>>> Teco
>>>
>>>
>>> Op 30 mrt 2011, om 13:46 heeft Joe Touch het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Teco,
>>>>
>>>> On 3/30/2011 4:29 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
>>>>> Sorry for x-posting. But there is a conflict in:
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-smf
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update
>>>>>
>>>>> SMF has a duplicate packet detection function based on the IPv4
>>>>> ID field. So text in ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update section 4
>>>>> is not correct, in that there would be no deployments for such.
>>>>
>>>> SMF is experimental. When we talk about deployments of duplicate detection, we're focused on standards-based systems.
>>>>
>>>> Note that ipv4-id-update is standards-track.
>>>>
>>>>> That said, SMF deployment with IPv4 DPD on IP-ID would be limited.
>>>>>
>>>>> What to do?
>>>>
>>>> IMO, recommend H-DPD and change the discussion to explain why the ID shouldn't be used for DPD (the text is basically already there - it mentions the idea, but then explains that it's not likely to work anyway).
>>>>
>>>> Use of the IP ID for this purpose is problematic for a variety of reasons, which is why ipv4-id-update deprecates use of that field for that purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list
>>> manet@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>
>>
>