Subject: [manet] dsr and more.

From: "leb7" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:01:37 -0500

Hi,
first i would apreciate it if someone can link me to a current draft for
dsr.
the one i have is:
draft-ietf-manet-dsr-07.txt
which expired august 2002.

also, i am interested in knowing what everyone thinks about mutlimedia
(audio and video)
over ad hoc networks. what development are underway?
are there any specific protocols for this purpose?
who is working on this in general?

thanks,
louis
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Dave Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:17:08 -0600

> which expired august 2002.

That is still the current version of the draft.  We have been
working on a revised version but have not quite finished it yet.
The new version should be out soon.

					Dave

---

From: Ramón Agüero<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:06:45 +0100

Dear Dave and all,

I have two doubts concerning DSR, I would be grateful to receive hints for 
any of them:

(1) The first question has been already posted on the list before (let me 
copy and paste it):
I've been revising the current version for the DSR protocol, and I have 
found something which, in my opinion, it should be a mistake. If you look 
at section 5.3 (Route Reply Option Format) there are 5 pieces of 
information within it:
- Option Type
- Option Data Length
- The "L" bit
- Some Reserved bits
- The whole list of addresses belonging to the route
However, if you read section 6.2.4 (Originating a Route Reply) you will be 
able to see that it is assumed that an Identification field is also needed 
at the DSR Route Reply header, as it says:
- The Route Request Identifier MUST be initialized to the Identifier field 
of the Route Request that this reply is sent in response to.
Could anybody tell me whether the Route Reply should include a ID field?

(2) The second question concerns the Route Reply option. When the target 
node transmits a ROUTE_REPLY, does it use a SOURCE_ROUTE option? If so, is 
it needed to follow the Maintenance phase completely (i.e. with ACK_REQUEST 
and so on)? Has anybody thought about getting rid of the extra overhead 
introduced by the SOURCE_ROUTE option by using the route inside the 
ROUTE_REPLY?

Thanks in advance... Any pointer will be welcomed.

Ramón

---

From: Kartik Rao <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:37:57 -0500

>Could anybody tell me whether the Route Reply should include a ID field?

You do not need an ID field in the Route Reply. The Request ID is only used 
at intermediate nodes to determine whether a duplicate route request has 
arrived at the intermediate node with the same request ID from the same 
source node.

>it needed to follow the Maintenance phase completely (i.e. with 
>ACK_REQUEST and so on)? Has anybody thought about getting rid of the extra 
>overhead introduced by the SOURCE_ROUTE option by using the route inside 
>the ROUTE_REPLY?

This is ambiguous in the draft and not specified in detail.