Subject: [manet] Is the Protocol for Simple or Complex Devices?

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 13:17:27 +0200

Hi John and Henning,

The subject question was asked for protocols like OLSRv2 and AODVv2
and they do consider both type devices, but DLEP-02 is mostly for one
type,

I don't prefer using MAC nor IP addresses if using RFC5444 messaging
as the presented/latest DLEP-02. I prefer using 5444 addresses
specified only for the DLEP protocol. However, I don't mind to allow
MAC or IP addresses if it has advantages for the neighbors.

I understood by the draft-02 that it does use the radio to remote info
with neighbors without router protocol, which this is the main point
of its mechanism. DLEP uses radio layer 2 (L2) to detect links and
communicate with neighbors at L2, then reports to L3.

Simpler devices/technologies does not need DLEP services. IMHO, the
DLEP is for complex devices (haveay weight technologies).

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 07/05/2012 11:10 AM, John Dowdell wrote:

OK can I modify my request below then to read as follows?

If a DLEP client (radio) receives one or more IP addresses from its
immediately attached DLEP server (router) during the Peer Offer or
Peer Update message, it MUST pass that information across to the
remote client (by means of radio magic) and that information MUST be
passed from the remote client to the remote DLEP server during the
Neighbour Up and Neighbour Address Update messages.

What is with radios that do NOT exchange IP addresses as part of their
"neighbor detection" (the radio magic is not present?) ? I don't think
it is a good idea to mandate DLEP to send data over the radio on its
own.
If the radio supports this, I agree this is a MUST.

But think about DLEP implementations for simpler devices (maybe as
simple as IEEE 802.11 embedded radios, connected to a central router
with ethernet).
Henning Rogge

I cannot immediately think of a scenario where an IP address would
not be supplied from the server to the client, but I'm happy to allow
for that possibility.

John

-----Original Message----- From: manet-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:manet-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henning Rogge Sent: 04
July 2012 11:58 To: manet at ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] Status of
DLEP-draft at Cisco?

On 07/04/2012 11:03 AM, John Dowdell wrote:

Based on our experience with using DLEP, I would request that it
becomes mandatory to supply either an IPv4 or IPv6 address of the
far end router during a Neighbour Up/Down message as that would
speed up the routing process. Total contact time between routers in
a MANET could be very short, and anything that helps speed the
establishment of the connection is welcome.

I would say it should be mandatory if the knowledge is present on
the DLEP-capable device. If you do not know the IP addresses of each
partner, you can still use DLEP and leave this job to the router.

As to the 5444 debate, I do not see the need for 5444 compliance
in DLEP.

If we can find a good fit for all the DLEP use cases with RFC5444, I
see no need to specify another packet format for it. DLEP transports
information (many of them optional) about the local radio/modem and
information (also many of them optional) about connection between
radios/modems. This seems to be a very good description of the
concept of RFC5444.

It also needs multiple kinds of messages, which makes message
aggregation into a single block of information an useful feature.

At last, it needs to interact with routing protocols (especially
MANET protocols), which makes reusing rfc5444 a good thing.

I agree with the 'it's not a routing protocol' stance, and in my
view it just adds unnecessary complexity, but I'm open to
discussion on the extensibility issue.

What do you think is the difference in implementing a custom DLEP
protocol language and a RFC5444 compliant one? In the second case,
you might be able to reuse code written for routing protocols, in the
first one you have to do it from scratch.

Henning Rogge

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 13:23:39 +0200

> DLEP is for complex devices (haveay weight technologies).

The concept of DLEP works well both for heavy weight "Software Defined 
Radios" and for lightweight devices as embedded IEEE 802.11 routers.

The lightweight use case allows to easily build multi-radio IEEE 802.11 
installations made from a number of weather-proof single-radio routers, 
connected to a central router via ethernet.

This is exactly the same usage scenario as the heavy-weight one, just 
with other hardware.

Do we really want to restrict DLEP to a certain type of device? Do we 
want a "DLEP-for heavy weight devices" and another RFC with "DLEP for 
light devices" ?

Henning Rogge

-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0

---

From: Bo Berry <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:20:44 -0400

Henning, All
Few responses to the thread below
-Bo

On Jul 5, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:

> The concept of DLEP works well both for heavy weight "Software Defined Radios" and for lightweight devices as embedded IEEE 802.11 routers.

Yes, we have DLEP experiences with light and heavy weight radios (what defines a light weight vrs a heavy weight radio?).  We purposely abstract the radio technology to avoid niche solutions.  

DLEP should not be limited to a radio type as radio capabilities are quickly changing.

> 
> The lightweight use case allows to easily build multi-radio IEEE 802.11 installations made from a number of weather-proof single-radio routers, connected to a central router via ethernet.
> This is exactly the same usage scenario as the heavy-weight one, just with other hardware.
> 
> Do we really want to restrict DLEP to a certain type of device?

No, +1

> Do we want a "DLEP-for heavy weight devices" and another RFC with "DLEP for light devices" ?

No, +1

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

----
[email-masked]
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. This email may contain information that is protected by NDA. Any unauthorized review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.