Subject: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsr-07.txt

From: "Philippe Jacquet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:13:14 +0100

Hello,

Due to a technical problem of last minute, our draft submission of OLSR v7
failed (again). Sorry for this inconvenience. Anyhow  the draft is available
on the following URL:
http://hipercom.inria.fr/olsr/draft-ietf-manet-olsr-07.txt
Please take a look at it. We will be happy to discuss it during the Atlanta
meeting. There are not big changes from what has already been presented in
Yokohama.

Major changes from version 06 to version 07

     -    Introduction of relay willingness in hellos

     -    Introduction of redundant link set in TC messages

     -    Introduction of packet sequence number in order to clarify
          link management

Philippe

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

---

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:01:03 -0800

Hello Phillippe,

I've been checking into path MTU discovery issues for various protocols and
mechanisms, and I'm wondering if this is something you need to account 
for in
the OLSR draft. In section 2.3.6.3, the following text appears:

   A MID message is sent by a node in the network to declare its multi-
   ple interfaces (if any). I.e., the MID message contains the list of
   interface addresses which are associated to its main address.  The
   list of addresses can be partial in each TC message (e.g. due to mes-
   sage size limitations, imposed by the network), but parsing of all
   MID messages describing a nodes interface set MUST be complete within
   a certain refreshing period (MID_INTERVAL). The information diffused
   in the network by these MID messages will help each node to calculate
   its routing table. A node which has only a single interface address
   participating in the MANET (i.e. running OLSR), MUST NOT generate any
   MID message.

I am wondering if it will make sense to add a maximum transmit unit
(MTU) parameter for each interface in the mid message so that other
nodes can avoid sending packets that will fragment and/or be dropped
if the don't-fragment (DF) bit is set. It may be possible to just
add the minimum MTU of all the links advertised in the MID message?
I'm concerned about the effects of fragmentation on wireless media;
especially when large messages are flooded. I think it may help to
find a "minimum MTU" for the scope of the MANET so that the multicast
flooding won't get hampered by harmful fragmentation.

Your thoughts?

Fred Templin
[email-masked]

---

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:01:03 -0800

Hello Phillippe,

Your thoughts?

Fred Templin
[email-masked]

---

From: "Philippe Jacquet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:50:45 +0100

Fred,

This is a very interesting suggestion. If nodes advertize their minimum MTU,
then every remote node would be able to properly tune its broadcast packet
size. Putting this information in MID message makes sense, because when
there is only one interface type in the network, the MTU is already
implicitly known by every node. This is a nice idea.

Regards,
Philippe

---

From: "Philippe Jacquet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:50:45 +0100

Fred,

Regards,
Philippe