Hello folks,
I don't think we should have a 32-bit hop count!!
Why??
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 4/13/2016 7:56 AM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:
Hi all,
Am 05.04.2016 um 00:22 schrieb Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>>:
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2016, at 6:52 PM, Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
In line...
On 4 Apr 2016 18:37, "Ratliff, Stanley" <sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 4, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> On 4 Apr 2016 18:08, "Stan Ratliff" <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Apr 4, 2016, at 5:34 PM, John Dowdell <john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, post to show progress :)
> > >
> > > OK looking at some TODOs now
> > >
> > > 1. The ones in the definitions; is it worth linking from the definition to where the explanatory text is?
> > > 2. Applicability statement. Sigh. Wireless networks. We discussed keeping that rabbit hole shut, and I’d rather not open it again. Yes it is very likely that AODVv2 will be used on wireless networks, but given that a very high proportion of mesh and point to point wireless networks operate some proprietary or closed standard protocol (apart from the usual 802.11 and .15 ones), I’d really rather not get into a protracted discussion of what could and could not be done here.
> > > 3. Page 9: yes there is an issue with hop-by-hop trust. Correct. Does anyone know how to fix that yet? No. We kicked it around again in DTN this morning and still no nearer a workable solution. IMO best left as an exercise for the reader, or text to that effect. If I was building such a network today, I would probably pre-load key material into each node with a lifetime of the mission plus a bit, maybe with a spare set of keys in case of compromise. In the future when technology has moved on to be able to properly negotiate trust without reference to a central PKI server, I would do something fancier.
> > > 4. Page 17, maximum single hop metric value. The current IETF favourite appears to be two bytes worth, think this is the same in DLEP (Stan can you confirm please?). Can we go with that?
> >
> > DLEP tends to go with 8-octet data items. We followed the notion that if you make everything as big as possible ( a long long), then nobody will ask you to make it larger... ;-)
> >
> > But in this application, I'd think 2 bytes is sufficient.
> >
>
> That comment was where we said a route has a maximum cost metric allowed, and Justin said to consider adding a maximum cost per link.
>
> Since we only defined hopcount...
> Section 11.6. MetricType Allocation says that the hopcount metric value uses 1 octet, hence why the maximum route metric allowed is 255. For hopcount obviously the maximum single hop cost is 1.
>
> The maximum route cost for other metric types depends on the number of octets used to represent that metric. We don't have any defined yet. Are you saying that when these metrics are defined, their values should be limited to 2 bytes? Also (what i think Justin meant) is it also useful to define a maximum link metric?
>
> For route cost, I'd go with a 32-but value. But I'm also convinced anything we pick will be deemed to be wrong... ;-) So let's pick 32 bits and "get corrected". At least we'll get it over with.
>
> Max link metric? Don't know. I'll defer to you.
>
So in messages when we report the accumulated metric, the field in the TLV should have length of 32 bits? There's no point in having the table in 11.6 define the number of bytes used to represent the value of each metric type.
Yes. Again, let's just pick that - we'll "get corrected", and we can move on.
So the gist of this discussion is that
11.6. MetricType Allocation
should be changed from
+---------------------+----------+--------------------+
| Name of MetricType | Type | Metric Value Size |
+---------------------+----------+--------------------+
| Unassigned | 0 | Undefined |
| Hop Count | 3 [TBD] | 1 octet |
| Unallocated | 9 - 254 | TBD |
| Reserved | 255 | Undefined |
+---------------------+----------+--------------------+
to
+---------------------+----------+--------------------+
| Name of MetricType | Type | Metric Value Size |
+---------------------+----------+--------------------+
| Unassigned | 0 | Undefined |
| Hop Count | 3 [TBD] | 4 octets |
| Unallocated | 9 - 254 | 4 octets |
| Reserved | 255 | Undefined |
+---------------------+----------+--------------------+
?
I think I’m a bit lost, sorry :(
Best regards,
Lotte
Regards,
Stan
Kind regards,
Vicky.
> Stan
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Vicky.
>
> > Stan
> >
> >
> > > 5. RREP_Ack timeout. I’d expect to get an Ack back pretty quickly since it’s only coming from one hop away. Is there a short time value we can re-use from somewhere else in this spec?
> > > 6. Check RREP_Ack in MRMT. Why isn’t this the right place, thought this was now the working space for routes before they go live into the kernel?
> > > 7. (What does this mean? How would one determine a link to a neighbor to be broken….suggest removing it JWD TODO) need some clarification. We do discuss how to detect links are broken, and what is it that he is asking to be removed?
> > > 8. Page 24 sect 6.6 the table for waiting routes is the MRMT, is it not?
> > >
> > > That’s all for now. Lotte, you are owed a very significant number of beers.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 4 Apr 2016, at 20:59, Ratliff, Stanley <sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Go!
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Stan
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>
> > >> On Apr 4, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>><mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi all,
> > >> since we're allowed to submit Drafts again now (I think) and we decided to publish asap, I thought I'd give you a quick status update and wait for your Go/"Wait a minute, let's fix this first" signals.
> > >>
> > >> DONE:
> > >> ----
> > >> * All JWD!s are resolved now
> > >> * out of 90 JWD and JWD! comments, 64 are done (I've attached my copy of Justin's review if you want to look for the remaining 26 TODOs, it's the file called "draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 (2).txt")
> > >> * added revised security considerations
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> TO DO:
> > >> ----
> > >> * Most notable of the 26 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 I've volunteered to write text for that, but every time I set out to do that,
> > >> I got more confused... I'm starting to worry about the amount of tables AODVv2 needs by now, and
> > >> I've been picking Vickys brain on how to achieve storing that info without having to add another table,
> > >> but it's an ongoing process.
> > >> + the approaching the limit thing we're currently discussing in "[aodvv2-discuss] Re: Justin's review"
> > >> * some TODOs in security considerations (see github)
> > >> * still waiting for Chris' feedback regarding the revised 5444 multiplexer wording, so that hasn't changed yet
> > >> * Make it more clear that AODVv2 currently doesn't support RREQs for prefixes to make Thomas happy (I'm planning to do that tomorrow afternoon)
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Lotte
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> <draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 (2).txt>
> > >> <draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-14d-from-c.diff.html>
> > >> <draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-14d.txt>
> > >>
> > >> _____________________________________________________
> > >> 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.
> > >> _____________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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.
> _____________________________________________________
>
>
