Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 09:11:10 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Snapshot of OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management
        Authors         : Thomas Clausen
                          Ulrich Herberg
	Filename        : draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-01.txt
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2014-07-04

Abstract:
   This document describes how Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are
   typically managed, in terms of pre-deployment management, as well as
   rationale and means of monitoring and management of MANET routers
   running the Optimized Link State Routing protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)
   and its constituent MANET NehgiborHood Discovery Protocol (NHDP).
   Apart from pre-deployment management for setting up IP addresses and
   security related credentials, OLSRv2 only needs routers to agree one
   single parameter (called "C").  Other parameters for tweaking network
   performance may be determined during operation of the network, and
   need not be the same in all routers.  This, using MIB modules and
   related management protocols such as SNMP (or possibly other, less
   "chatty", protocols).  In addition, for debugging purposes,
   monitoring data and performance related counters, as well as
   notifications ("traps") can be sent to the Network Management System
   (NMS) via standardized management protocols.  This document

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Thomas Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 18:18:21 +0200

Hello all y’all,

We’ve put together a new version of this I-D, and we pretty much believe that it reflects all the feedback that we have gotten since the previous version - so the authors also pretty much feel that we’re getting close to done with this document.

Would y'all give it a once-over and let’s have your feedback of it, then we’d mighty appreciate it?

	=>	If there’s something that you feel is missing, from how *you* mange *your* 
		OLSRv2-MANETs, then a paragraph of text would be awesome for making progress. I mean,
		who knows *your* network better than *you*, right?

In an ideal world, we’d like to get feedback before  Toronto (where we’ve requested a brief slot on the agenda), then spin a new version during the IETF week, and ask  to have it WGLCed  immediately thereafter. We’ll also both be in Toronto, in case there’s something that needs f2f discussion.

But, bottom line, we’d like to see this move along rather than linger ;)

Cheers,

Thomas

Begin forwarded message:

> From: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-01.txt
> Date: July 4, 2014 at 18:11:10 GMT+2
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:36:18 +0200

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Clausen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hello all y’all,
>
> We’ve put together a new version of this I-D, and we pretty much believe
> that it reflects all the feedback that we have gotten since the previous
> version - so the authors also pretty much feel that we’re getting close to
> done with this document.
>

I think section 3.1 is worded a bit strong... its true that RFC5444
messages can only contain a single address type as addresses, but
RFC5444 packets can contain messages with different address lengths.

The section reads (for me) that you cannot support both IPv4 and IPv6
within the same routing daemon, which is not true. The olsr.org
implementation does exactly this (even without my optimization
tricks), it even runs a single dijkstra over a set of both IPv4 and
IPv6 OLSRv2 nodes and edges.

----

Do we want to mention that most Freifunk/Funkfeuer networks use TCP
based queries (either pure text of HTML) with JSON output to query the
state of the OLSR (v1) implementation... the OLSRv2 implementation of
olsr.org will allow to do the same.

Would it be interesting to see if we can standardize a JSON query
interface? Or if we can map the SNMP definitions to JSON in a
reasonable way?

Henning Rogge

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:40:12 -0700

Hi Henning,

thanks for your review! See inline (only my comments, not yet
discussed with my co-author)

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Henning Rogge <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [...]

I agree that this section needs some word-smiting. Good points!

> olsr.org will allow to do the same.

We could indeed mention that as an example of alternative interfaces
for managing MANET routers. I think it's a good idea.

> interface? Or if we can map the SNMP definitions to JSON in a

That is a bigger question than can (or should IMO) be handled in this
draft, but a very interesting one. And it may be even bigger than
MANET. Are you aware of the COMAN mailing list? They have discussed
management of constrained devices for some time, although so far no
BoF has resulted from these discussions. In the 6lo WG, we have
similar discussions for how to manage constrained devices. There are
proposals to reuse Yang models via HTTP
(draft-bierman-netconf-restconf-04) or COAP
(raft-vanderstok-core-comi-04). It would definitely be good to reuse
existing management interfaces (such as MIB modules and YANG). The
IESG has released a statement to prefer YANG over MIB modules for
writable configuration:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html
I just recently had a phone call with three "B"-ADs on this topic
(Benoit, Barry and Brian), and they promised to send out an email to
multiple WGs regarding this topic, as it may require a cross-WG effort
(the email is still pending).

Coming back to your suggestion, JSON may be a good approach to manage
devices. And it's good to see that you already have an implementation.
I think we should discuss this more in Toronto. Will you be there?

Best regards
Ulrich

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 08:54:54 +0200

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> MANET. Are you aware of the COMAN mailing list?

No.

> They have discussed

I need to look at these drafts when I find the necessary time.

> devices. And it's good to see that you already have an implementation.

One reason for JSON seems to be that it can be easily parsed by shell
scripts and LUA scripts (which is common on OpenWRT because the
interpreter is very compact).

> I think we should discuss this more in Toronto. Will you be there?

Unfortunately not.

Henning Rogge