[manet] DYMO Address Prefix length: discrepancy between DYMO and PacketBB drafts
Ulrich Meis <meis@i4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Thu, 20 April 2006 19:12 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FWeZW-00086q-GX; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:12:10 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FWeZV-00086l-JH for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:12:09 -0400
Received: from i4mail.informatik.rwth-aachen.de ([137.226.12.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FWeZT-0000ZI-1Z for manet@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:12:09 -0400
Received: from i4mail (i4mail.informatik.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.12.21]) by i4mail.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FB11849A for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:11:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from cronos.info-4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de ([137.226.12.31]) by i4mail.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (MailMonitor for SMTP v1.2.2 ) ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:11:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fatty.informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE ([137.226.12.89]) by Info-4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:11:57 +0200
From: Ulrich Meis <meis@i4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
To: manet@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:11:54 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200604202111.55117.meis@i4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2006 19:11:57.0316 (UTC) FILETIME=[4B117440:01C664AE]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb
Subject: [manet] DYMO Address Prefix length: discrepancy between DYMO and PacketBB drafts
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org
DYMO in all drafts states that if the prefix field is missing the prefix length is assumed to be 0. PacketBB on the other hand states that the prefix length, if absent, is considered to be equal to the address length. Certainly, this makes more sense and saves implementations from having to handle this case differently. My guess is that DYMO has adopted its default from AODV where 31 is the maximum for this field since it has only 5 bits. IPv4's address length of 32 cannot be represented. Although DYMO in draft 03 already reserved 6-7 bits for this field(depends if you read page 7 or 12). In my opinion DYMO and PacketBB should have the same prefix length semantics. However, if that is not desired, I'd suggest to state this fact in upcoming DYMO drafts to avoid confusion. Relevant sections: ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-manet-dymo-04.txt Page 10: RM should contain a Prefix for each address that is not a host address. If a prefix is not included in conjunction with an address, it is assumed zero (host address only). For more information on advertising a Prefix see Section 4.7. ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-00.txt Page 13: An address SHALL NOT appear more than once in the same message with the same prefix length (an address without a PREFIX-LENGTH TLV is considered to have a prefix length equal to the address length); ------------------------------------ Thanks, Uli _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
- [manet] DYMO Address Prefix length: discrepancy b… Ulrich Meis
- Re: [manet] DYMO Address Prefix length: discrepan… Ian Chakeres