IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-lid-extension-01.txt

HvFK <hvfk62@gmail.com> Mon, 05 February 2018 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <hvfk62@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 BE4FF1270AE for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 08:31:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 UeRc6yIUjYP1 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 08:31:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (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 7694712702E for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 08:31:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 141so26963589wme.3 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 08:31:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:mime-version:to:cc:from:subject:date:in-reply-to :references; bh=Iio62F277aRSYoYdrDZ7Mfl0JUz5PcXTQhrfe2fxrFk=; b=sUd/k1HH8Swj2IholMPjFBEdqxUKmb2/w4VcrUu2pxDVpNRWzf3VU9cyRdcRsdzU/f VtPLl2n2lg9gIg82X5UHLMQLQKTv5cCW3aRZuhotlfKImy7OOjhcN8OPckK1spABs7cS MDvBiwRRg8UxcczFT+JSx2x+CvQu6OgK/08rTFk9EKrKk1Yq30eQFzqsdBH3GluyRJLz zerfIktgLX3tfXF/7dWiYE9v0w/DAiOAzaG5yZj0JGdQwi+5OSB/izGLgEsYdAEmo8Ne 0+d5Jq90ELEF9tSusPpZNd0oBbt2lTXf+uf5CPwurJ7KubDudSdE++eYSH1a68mPc/F8 SFHw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:mime-version:to:cc:from:subject:date :in-reply-to:references; bh=Iio62F277aRSYoYdrDZ7Mfl0JUz5PcXTQhrfe2fxrFk=; b=kfX6Spd/fnPd+2fy3Zf3t7tYj7QLzcs3onXPpjfAd+/QCU4gpGBKjqoCye4grf008D QZN+LBtY8zOF/aTESlYHxnNCU9mMC4t+4EHProm+JDnH15vuHovZAUAGy8MJxNKi8o5X jUTw42rj5OLX5No7Hz7EON9CueAuE/t51GScUxwQmhK+wRX3gS3+284G2ySdnT4on+3o Yiq5EuPrkNdQniaI1gL1lltSmKiUSM2ewLuYVAuTPIhwz881GW5qjSOHLZy/CWSlmlUT iQslF8FA9ZL3xQ61GnpgOXul5pO8CmhvzbFnpZMu2ltssK0/YTP1I+gbRXdTrqmsvykF nxBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfZk4gV9t90bucjg4PB3aW4pVSvvKijaVSYondEmZaJlximF0HF TLc3xph6cCoX9p7xwMV7IKE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224rvJ8tVeku5M6tB2F/Impc4CGYXOzmGDrwsaNcN8Ri/8OS1lKJ0st+ARK2EzzY5KSSpowrXg==
X-Received: by 10.80.174.227 with SMTP id f32mr81480526edd.155.1517848294057; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 08:31:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (dslb-088-068-202-193.088.068.pools.vodafone-ip.de. [88.68.202.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p32sm8000369eda.69.2018.02.05.08.31.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5a7886e4.2394500a.3b85e.bf5f@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, "hrogge@gmail.com" <hrogge@gmail.com>
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
From: HvFK <hvfk62@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 17:31:33 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1517836460.8344.6.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <151732120050.27516.9349844420176741896@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAGnRvuo0dXFdJcjvnbed216+Fu54sV2GYDQOP1hT+xuv3PpZWQ@mail.gmail.com> <1517831785.8344.5.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CAGnRvupu-79BaAW-2vuNnB5Bs_eCr9HaH-Je_CvLfvYo2WL-VA@mail.gmail.com> <1517836460.8344.6.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_FBE0539D-B9AF-4A0F-A9C0-346182E425BC_"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/u4S2VE7a7gEY3Ndj5X5cCy3DuyE>
Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-lid-extension-01.txt
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, 05 Feb 2018 16:31:38 -0000

Hi Rick, Henning, all

I think with both the Link-Identifier-Data-Item and Link-Identifier-Length-Data-Item we have some good flexibility. I personally do not see a need for the flags. I am also happy to remove it.
Best Regards,  Georg

----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
Von: "Rick Taylor" <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Gesendet: ‎05.‎02.‎2018 14:14
An: "hrogge@gmail.com" <hrogge@gmail.com>
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-lid-extension-01.txt

On Mon, 2018-02-05 at 13:00 +0100, Henning Rogge wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Rick Taylor
> <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > On Mon, 2018-02-05 at 11:01 +0100, Henning Rogge wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I think I like the new text two, its easy to read and introduce
> > > the
> > > new concept quickly.
> > 
> > Thank you (and Georg as well) very much!
> > 
> > > 
> > > The only thing I am concerned about is the "empty" flags field...
> > > do
> > > we already have an usecase for this?
> > 
> > I must admit, I copy and pasted the text from elsewhere, and then
> > realized I had no flags.
> > 
> > However, one possible flag could used to distinguish between Links
> > to
> > Destinations with an IP address (addressable destinations/ Layer 3
> > radio net) and Links to  Infrastructure (no IP address, just a
> > subnet).
> >  Although this extension doesn't need to differentiate, it might be
> > useful for the router to know the difference when used with other
> > extensions (hop control perhaps).
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to look at the prefix length of the IP?
> 
> > > If not, we could remove it and introduce it (if necessary) in an
> > > extension... we could discover the existence of an (optional)
> > > flags
> > > field by comparing the length of the link-id TLV with the (known)
> > > value of the link-id-length TLV.
> > 
> > Yes, if a flags field was needed later, a 'Link Identifiers Flags'
> > extension could introduce it legitimately.
> 
> So what do you think, just drop the flags field?

I'm happy to drop them if no-one can think of a use for them.

Rick
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email