Hello folks,
Before I wade into unfriendly waters, can someone tell me why AODVv2
does not already support the same IP address on multiple interfaces? We
already went over this more than once, and keeping a single sequence
number for all IP addresses on the same device just works!
Right now I can't think of any problem with this, but if any of you
remember please tell me.
Regards,
Charlie P.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [manet] AODVv2 reivew
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:27:10 -0500
From: Justin Dean <bebemaster@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Christopher Dearlove <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, manet@xxxxxxxx
<manet@xxxxxxxx>
To me this isn't a big deal (unless it isn't fixed). Two ways to fix
it. Disallow different interfaces to have the same address. Two
mandate any interfaces with the same IP address MUST be bridged into a
single logical interface (i.e. both interfaces send and receive the same
traffic). Either way fixes the issue.
Justin
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen
<ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
A question and a comment:
1) I thought this was about AODVv2, not DLEP, so I fail to seeÂ
   why it is relevant to bring DLEP into this discussion?
I was asked, implicitly, why *I* was pushing (since I was repeatedly
named) for a set of requirements *then*, and not so *now* -
specifically, support of ip unnumbered on interfaces. It's relevant
to explain that it was based on companion technology - technology
that I no longer require. I would think that was self-evident.
Apparently not.Â
Â
2) I think that the argument bring made here is the logical
fallacy called
     /"moving the goal posts"/.Â
You are correct in that there is a logical fallacy in play here.
Yours. All I've said is (and I quote): "I donât have any great
issues with disallowing it." That's an *opinion*, not an *edict*;
nor does it connote moving of goal posts, or any other associated
hardware. At least I believe that, according to IETF rules, I still
get to express opinions, as a WG participant... or did some RFC slip
past that I'm not aware of?Â
Stan
Â
 Â
There are use cases for "same IP address on multiple interfaces"
and I believe they should be supported (as Chris wrote that we
did for OLSRv2 "to the maximum extend possible"), also by this
protocol.
Thomas
On 02 Mar 2016, at 17:02, Ratliff, Stanley <sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Chris,
Â
Iâm digging deep into the memory banks here⦠;-) But from
what I remember, there were discussions at my old employer
about the possibilities of implementing & running OLSRv2 in
the router. Our implementations at the time were based on
RFC5578 â a collection of PPPoE links, running over an RF
net. For that, âip unnumberedâ would have been a
requirement. Since DLEP is **not** PPPoE based, it pretty
much mitigates the requirement.
Â
Regards,
Stan
Â
Â
*From:*Christopher Dearlove [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:55 AM
*To:* Ratliff, Stanley <sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
*Cc:* Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
<chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; Justin Dean
<bebemaster@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bebemaster@xxxxxxxxx>>;
manet@xxxxxxxx <mailto:manet@xxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* Re: [manet] AODVv2 reivew
Â
I'm not sure why the case was insisted on for OLSRv2 (though
we were happy to oblige to the maximum extent possible) and
isn't required for AODVv2, but it wasn't my requirement.
Â
As for the different addresses on different platforms, I think
we are agreed, it was the point I made. (Gateways may be a
related but different issue.)
--Â
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:christopher.dearlove@xxxxxxxxx>
On 2 Mar 2016, at 15:19, Ratliff, Stanley
<sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Chris,
Â
To answer a question with a question â Will anyone want
to run AODVv2 over a collection of PPPoE links? I doubt
it. I donât have any great issues with disallowing it.
That would also resolve Justinâs uni-directional failure
case, since the common addresses wouldnât be assigned to
multiple interfaces in the first place.
Â
Other thoughts?
Â
Regards,
Stan
Â
Â
*From:*Christopher Dearlove
[mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 02, 2016 9:52 AM
*To:* Ratliff, Stanley <sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
*Cc:* Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
<chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; Justin Dean
<bebemaster@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bebemaster@xxxxxxxxx>>;
manet@xxxxxxxx <mailto:manet@xxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* Re: [manet] AODVv2 reivew
Â
The question is, is that important for AODVv2? Should it
allow it? Are there any problems?
Â
As I've just said in another post, the step beyond that of
routers sharing an address is a problem, but I don't
expect it to be relevant as people shouldn't do it (it
could be explicitly said). Though what I didn't address
there is the impact on gateways. We resolved that in
OLSRv2 with two different kinds of advertised address, one
shareable among routers, not tied to an interface, one
shareable among interfaces but only on the same router and
only if not commonly hearable.
-- Â
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:christopher.dearlove@xxxxxxxxx> (iPhone)
chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (home)
On 2 Mar 2016, at 14:17, Ratliff, Stanley
<sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Chris,
Â
The use case comes from routers implementingip
unnumbered. It can cause the same address to be placed
on multiple interfaces. From what I recall, its
especially prevalent with PPPoE interfaces, as they
are virtual; cloned from a common template.
Â
Regards,
Stan
Â
Â
Â
In NHDP, we added (following requests from the WG,
Stan in particular IIRC) the more tricky case of the
same address used on different interfaces. We had to
limit that, so any receiving interface would only ever
receive one or the other (which otherwise is not a
requirement in NHDP) - which might in a real case be
e.g. different frequencies (timeslots, codes, etc.) I
have no idea whether this is easy or hard in AODVv2
(the devil is in the details). I donât know if Stan
(for example) still has this requirement.
Â
*-- *
************************
_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with
it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged,
proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use
of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not
the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the
email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received
this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you
received this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the
sender.
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@xxxxxxxx <mailto:manet@xxxxxxxx>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it
contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of
the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the
original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the
email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you
received this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the
individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email
to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received
this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@xxxxxxxx <mailto:manet@xxxxxxxx>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
