Hello Vicky,
Thanks very much for helping me to avoid a fruitless search through RFC
5444. For the purposes of Wednesday, whatever people think will work!
Or, politically speaking, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 4/30/2016 6:37 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
From the usage draft:
1.2.2
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-03#section-1.2.2>.
Multiplexing and Demultiplexing
The primary purposes of the multiplexer are to:
o Accept messages from MANET protocols, which also indicate over
which interface(s) the messages are to be sent, and to which
destination address.
4.2
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-03#section-4.2>.
Packets and Messages
o Outgoing messages are then sent to the [RFC5444
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5444>] multiplexer. The
owning protocol MUST indicate which interface(s) the messages are
to be sent on and their destination address, and MAY request that
messages are kept together in a packet; the multiplexer SHOULD
respect this request if at all possible.
Kind regards,
Vicky :)
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello Vicky,
O.K., I will look to see how RFC 5444 provides a method to send
across a certain network interface.
Or if you happen to remember I would appreciate a small pointer...
No apologies needed, and thanks for helping me to understand your
point of view!
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 4/30/2016 6:21 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
Ok, so this relates back into what 5444 will tell us.
However, in other places in the draft we use the interface, both
storing it in a route, and sending messages on certain
interfaces. Has anyone flagged up that this isn't possible?
Sending on certain interfaces definitely is since rfc5444 says so
but I didn't see anything in 5444 or the usage draft which says
about receiving interface.
If I missed that in previous discussions then please accept my
apologies and carry on.
Kind regards,
Vicky.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello Vicky,
Follow-up below...
On 4/30/2016 4:39 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm lost on this discussion. I thought we'd
addressed it by noting what interface a message was received
on, and making sure to send a response on the same interface.
As stated, this fixes the problem.
However, I don't have any understanding about how an AODVv2
implementation will be able to note what interface a message
was received on.
Please let me know if I missed something about how that
happens. Or, if nobody cares!
Whenever such a requirement existed in the past, to my
knowledge it was always satisfied by either specialized IPv6
addresses or MAC addresses. For MIA, the former is not
available.
Regards,
Charlie P.
If this doesn't fix the problem, definitely get the
discussion on MANET and if its not too much trouble, state
exactly what problem it solves, I apologise but I feel like
I don't have time to scroll back through the archives. I
think we have until Wednesday?
Kind regards,
Vicky.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello folks,
I could submit a design for using RFC 7182 for the
end-to-end authentication unless you folks already have
a plan for that.
I would also be willing to carry on the discussion about
multi-interface IP address (MIA) handling unless
something has been decided about that. I didn't see any
follow-up to my previous discussion here or on the
mailing list, so I don't know the status.
Please let me know...
Regarding the MIA support, I think we ought to have a
configuration variable called MIA_SUPPORT. If TRUE,
then the platform would have to meet certain
requirements. These can be formulated as requirements
for "interface ID" support, or support for MAC
addresses. In the former case, I expect the requirement
for support would be more invasive. Supporting MAC
addresses is much more natural for the operating system
platform.
Regards,
Charlie P.
