Subject: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-iana (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Allocations for the Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANET) Working Group) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:41:54 -0400

The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG 
(manet) to consider the following document:

- 'Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Allocations for the 
   Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANET) Working Group '
   <draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2007-08-18. Exceptionally, 
comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please 
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15731&rfc_flag=0

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

---

From: Bo Berry <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:13:43 -0400

Given that the WG is working to define two standards
- Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP)
- Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP)
that may or may not converge, do we need to allocate
two port numbers so these protocols can co-exist?

There has also been a suggestion to allocate an IP protocol
number for a MANET routing protocol.  Should this be
included in this draft?

The various MANET protocols are moving to packetbb which
will require the definition of several/many TLV identifiers.
Where are these type IDs going to be allocated and tracked?
If in the separate protocol drafts, is there a potential
problem with overlap if IDs?   If so, perhaps the MANET
type IDs should be defined here.

draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-08 currently reserves IDs
   "Message type 0 MUST NOT be allocated because a zero-octet signifies a
   packet header and zero-octets are used for padding.  Message types 1
   to 4 are reserved because they are used by OLSR [4], which uses a
   compatible packet/message header format."

Thanks
-Bo

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 23:24:21 +0530

The decision to allocate one port was discussed in the MANET group. We
chose to reserve a single port to allow multiple protocols to be used
together. For example, it is extremely likely that NHDP will be used
with both DYMO and OLSRv2.

Before you voiced your suggestion to allocate an IP protocol number,
the issue has never arisen. Unless there is WG support to allocate an
IP protocol number, I do not think it will be allocated.

Regarding packetbb IANA considerations and other MANET WG protocols
additional IANA needs they are addressed in their documents. For
example, see packetbb's IANA section.

Ian

---

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:09:50 +0200

> Ian wrote:
[Teco] 
I did rise this question before, see below.
Maybe the issue is not that important; UDP overhead is 8 octets, brings
checksum and could take advantage of header compression for UDP. But using a
native IP protocol is more in line with other IETF routing protocols.

-----Original Message-----
From: Teco Boot [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: woensdag 25 april 2007 13:28
To: 'Ian Chakeres'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] manet-iana WG Last Call: site-local address and UDP only

Hi Ian,

You request a site-local multicast address. I cannot find any usage of it in
the current I-Ds. Do we need this? Or always perform hop-by-hop forwarding
using a link-local address? I think the latter is used by OLSRv2 and DYMO
protocols, but I can miss something.

You also do not request an IP protocol number. Maybe I missed a discussion
before and the outcome could be using UDP only, (may be TCP also). I cannot
find any reference. Using UDP checksum is a reason. 

Regards, Teco

---

From: Bo Berry <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:57:52 -0400

Thanks for the responses Teco (separate email) and Ian.

> IP protocol number, I do not think it will be allocated.

OK. Perhaps the WG should discuss it before we discount it.

> example, see packetbb's IANA section.

I have.  It appears to suggest three different IANAs.
 A new registry for message types must be created
 A new registry for packet TLV types must be created,
 A new registry for address block TLV types must be created.

Can these be in one draft, the MANET IANA doc, or is the plan to have
three separate drafts.  Or is the plan for each protocol to track
its own?  I went back through the archives and did not see such
discussion.

I am suggesting that the MANET IANA draft may be a good place,
specifically if multiple protocols will co-exist, sharing TLVs
and ports.

Sorry if I missed the discussions on these.

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:01:25 +0530

I think that supporting both UDP and an IP protocol number would make
ensuring interoperability more difficult. If I hear from the WG that
there is a leaning toward leaving UDP and switching to an IP protocol
number, then we can consider it.

As of today, I have not heard enough support for this change.

Ian Chakeres

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:08:55 +0530

Comments inline.

> OK. Perhaps the WG should discuss it before we discount it.

This issue is open for discussion, but as I mentioned I do not think
there is sufficient WG support. I personally do not think asking for
both a UDP port and an IP protocol number is good for ensuring
interoperability - and this is the main reason we have requested the
IANA allocations in this document.

Regarding packetbb's IANA needs, I think they are best served in the
PacketBB document. PacketBB requests the registries associated with
its type spaces. The other documents (e.g. TimeTLV, NHDP, DYMO,
OLSRv2, and metrics documents under consideration) then request IANA
allocations from the spaces created by the packet BB document.

Ian Chakeres

---

From: Bo Berry <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:53:17 -0400

> IANA allocations in this document.

I think running a routing protocol over UDP is less efficient
than directly over IP.  As long as the rough consensus is
happy w/ UDP, I'll chill-out.

If the MANET protocols will be UDP and packetbb based, should
the text in packetbb be modified to be more specific?

   ""The packets defined by this specification are designed to carry a
   number of messages between in a single transmission.  The packets may
   be unicast or multicast and may use any transport protocol (TCP, UDP,
   ...) appropriate to the protocol using this specification and may
   travel over a single logical hop which might consist of one or more
   IP hops.  When the diffusion mechanism enabled by this specification
   is employed, UDP may be most appropriate.""

>From my read, there is confusion when a draft trys to remain
so generic in one sense and then specific in another. Perhaps
it is just me and the pieces will come together in due time.