Hello folks,
I really don't think it's a good idea to remove the use of hop limit and
hop count. Otherwise, intermediate route reply is hamstrung because it
can't work properly unless every node implements whatever the
replacement new option is.
And that is a real loss.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 2/17/2016 1:03 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
Hi Lotte,
There really hasnt been much change to the draft (I doubt its worth releasing a new version). I moved IANA stuff around based on Chris Dearlove's comments, and removed references to hop limit and hop count (but the expanding rings multicast section still refers to msg-hop-limit). And yes the SHOULD-normative stuff I updated based on John's review.
I've tried to write something for the security issue basically summing up the comments about having a transitive trust model, but theres more work to be done (e.g. how to add the TLVs, probably more) ...I'll send it in its own thread, hopefully it will spark some comments / suggestions.
We also said that the multiple-interface, same IP address topic needed further discussion (points 11/17), but said "we dont *think* theres a problem" and the draft hasnt been changed.
Issue 15 we asked a question in response also, about "route to a specific address".
Regards,
Vicky
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi all,
since we've been firmly asked to be more transparent with the
MANET list, I was wondering if we should send a little update
e-mail (or even publish a new version), and how we want to proceed
solving the remaining open issues.
Looking at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg18384.html
and the follow-ups), the current open questions seem to be:
* [Use of msg-hop-limit and msg-hop-count: done]
* 7182 and security: to be solved. Does anyone have a suggestion
on how to tackle this one? Do we maybe know somebody who can help
us add the required analysis in a structured manner?
* 10. Terminology and elsewhere - address: we've said:
“AODVv2: We ask for clarification on this issue. We use the phrase
“routable and unicast” in the draft with respect to OrigAddr and
TargAddr. We dont mean to exclude addresses from the private
address ranges. But we dont want to request routes for multicast,
indeterminate, link-local, or loopback addresses. This is not
about router interface addresses which are used for AODVv2.”
And, iirc, we didn't get an answer yet. Does this one deserve its
own discussion thread on the MANET list? ;)
* [19. interfaces list - use of “SHOULD” : this, and the use of
"maybe-normative language", is done now too, right?]
* [IANA Considerations confusion: done]
Did I miss any? What do you think?
Regards, Lotte
