Hello folks,
What is the problem here? Don't we allow RREP to advertise a.0.0.0/8?
What does it mean to RREQ for a gateway? Is that like RREQ for a prefix
instead of a specific destination?
Regards,
Charlie P.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-14.txt
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:55:24 +0100
From: Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list <manet@xxxxxxxx>
[This time from a subscribed address.]
You say you've added a sentence saying AODVv2 doesn't do RREQs for
gateways. What should have happened is a discussion on this list as to
why? is that hard? does anyone have a clever idea to make it not hard?
does anyone need that functionality? and so on.
For example, here's something that superficially looks like it might
work. Does it, or does it introduce new problems? I don't know. But
this, and likely better ideas, just haven't had discussion here - and I
fear that the people who might have the better ideas have departed unheard.
So, a router wants a route to a.b.c.d, and sends an RREQ for that (/32,
or simply omit). Of course any router directly serving that address just
replies. But a router that is serving a.0.0.0/8 could reply with that
address. The originating router of course would use standard IP maximum
prefix length rules. Does that work? Does it help anyone? Could a router
reply a.b.c.d/32 and a.0.0.0/8 in one RREP? Or could it be allowed to
reply a.b.c.d/8 as a shorthand? And why can't a router request
a.b.0.0/16 - and possibly get an a.0.0.0/8 reply?
Answers to all of those is "I don't know". But we should have been
having those discussions.
--
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:christopher.dearlove@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:christopher.dearlove@xxxxxxxxx>
(iPhone)
chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (home)
On 7 Apr 2016, at 15:49, Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Am 05.04.2016 um 20:07 schrieb ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Lotte,
Thank you for this update. An impressive amount of changes to the document, according to RFCdiff, and as I can see from your mail that there is much more to come,
Thanks! Iâm glad youâre seeing the progress weâve made.
I hope that you forgive me for not jumping at a blow-by-blow review until a version which the authors themselves consider stable, is produced.
On the point of âmuch more to come", there have been quite a few comments raised by WG participants other than Mr. Dean and Chris (such as by myself, but not only) â some of which intersect some of the below, and for which I do not believe that a satisfactory resolution has been developed, presented to the WG, and confirmed.
Iâm not quite sure which comments exactly you are referring to? Your last comments that come to mind are the ones in these threads:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg18055.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg18639.html
Youâve announced to go through the former in your last response to the latter, but as far as I can see you havenât gotten round to doing that and a lot of points youâve brought up have sparked ongoing discussions, so Iâve marked most of your comments as âpendingâ still in discussionâ in my mind.
Regarding the points you brought up that arenât affected by this:
* Metricsâ weâve had discussions about this many moons ago with authors on both sides of the fence. Unfortunately I canât remember the counter arguments, and Iâm still looking for records of this conversation⦠Iâll get back to you when Iâve found out more.
* Prefixes & Gateways: Iâve added a sentence to clarify that AODVv2 doesnât do RREQs for gateways, I hop that helps?
In which revision of the I-D do you plan on addressing those?
If the discussions reach a conclusion by then, Iâd be glad to have them addressed by the next revision.
Best regards,
Lotte
Best,
Thomas
On Apr 5, 2016, at 12:53, Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi all,
just a quick summary of what is and what isnât included in this update of the draft:
DONE:
ââââ
* All JWD! comments (i.e. the critical ones) are resolved
* Out of 90 JWD and JWD! comments, 61 are resolved
* The revised security considerations [1] were added (with the TODOs commented out)
* The following TODO from [1] was resolved:
"This description MUST
include the reasons it was either unreasonable or out of scope to
attempt to avoid these denial of service attacks."
* Section 9 now contains a statement that AODVv2 doesnât support RREQs for prefixes, I hope that clears things up for Thomas.
TO DO:
ââââ
* Most notable of the 29 JWDs that are yet to be resolved:
+ /(is there some table that lists routes that are being waited on? JWD) /We decided to add a separate
RREP table that lists them and Iâve volunteered to write text for that, but weâre currently discussing if/how
we might solve this without adding yet another table.
+ Weâre currently discussing the approaching the limit thing. (i.e.
/ (There is no defined behavior here. Approaching the limit? Section 6.5 outlines which messages are more important but now how to decide to allow them to be transmitted or not. JWD /
and
/ (The undefined approaching the limit thing again JWD) etc/
Weâve already clarified the wording regarding what the limit is and how to prioritize the message types,
whatâs left is to define what âapproachingâ means (and whether we need to talk about approaching rather than
just saying âhereâs what to do when you actually hit the limit").
+ (I donât want to spam the list with a comprehensive list of all of them, but if youâre interested in seeing them,
please do say so and Iâll send my copy of Justinâs review containing all TODOs and DONEs to the list)
* some TODOs in security considerations (see [1])
* since we're waiting for Chrisâ feedback regarding the revised 5444 multiplexer wording, that hasnât changed yet.
More details can be found in Appendix A. AODVv2 Draft Updates, as well as the diff, of course.
Best regards,
Lotte
[1] Re: [manet] AODVv2: Security considerations updatehttps://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg18458.html
Am 05.04.2016 um 12:19 schriebinternet-drafts@xxxxxxxx <mailto:internet-drafts@xxxxxxxx>:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks of the IETF.
Title : Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Version 2 (AODVv2) Routing
Authors : Charles E. Perkins
Stan Ratliff
John Dowdell
Lotte Steenbrink
Victoria Mercieca
Filename : draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-14.txt
Pages : 80
Date : 2016-04-05
Abstract:
The Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Version 2 (AODVv2) routing
protocol is intended for use by mobile routers in wireless, multihop
networks. AODVv2 determines unicast routes among AODVv2 routers
within the network in an on-demand fashion.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-14
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-14
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@xxxxxxxx <mailto:manet@xxxxxxxx>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@xxxxxxxx <mailto:manet@xxxxxxxx>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@xxxxxxxx <mailto:manet@xxxxxxxx>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
