Subject: [manet] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-rogge-manet-nhdp-dualstack-optimization-01.txt

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:55:53 +0200

Hi,

I have uploaded a new revision of my "dualstack optimization" draft.

I hope the new revision addresses a few of the unclear parts of the
first one.

Henning Rogge

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-rogge-manet-nhdp-dualstack-optimization-01.txt
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 01:54:15 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>, Henning Rogge
<[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-rogge-manet-nhdp-dualstack-optimization-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Henning Rogge and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-rogge-manet-nhdp-dualstack-optimization
Revision:	01
Title:		Optimized flooding for NHDP Dual Stack routers
Document date:	2014-08-11
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		9
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rogge-manet-nhdp-dualstack-optimization-01.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rogge-manet-nhdp-dualstack-optimization/
Htmlized:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rogge-manet-nhdp-dualstack-optimization-01
Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-rogge-manet-nhdp-dualstack-optimization-01

Abstract:
   This document specifies an optimization for the flooding of RFC5444
   control traffic with NHDP in dualstack deployments.

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.

The IETF Secretariat

-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de

---

From: Jiazi YI <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:03:09 +0200

Hi Henning,

I took a quick look at the draft. The first question I would like to ask
is: what's the assumption of the "dual track" model you use here?
You assume two independent IPv4/IPv6 implementations are running on each
router? Or "a single combined implementation for both IP address types"? --
I actually don't know what how the latter works. If I remember correctly, a
NHDP router will regard message with different address length as "invalid".

best

Jiazi

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Henning Rogge <
[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:21:18 +0200

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Jiazi YI <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Henning,
>
> I took a quick look at the draft.
Thank you.

> The first question I would like to ask is:
> what's the assumption of the "dual track" model you use here?

See Section 3 and Section 7.2

You could actually implement this draft for both, but its easier if
you have a single implementation because both have to talk to each
other.

> I actually don't know what how the latter works.

My own implementation does exactly do this... single implementation
for both IPv4 and IPv6.

> If I remember correctly, a

Because NHDP Hello messages have no hoplimit/hoplimit=1 they will not
be aggregated into the "wrong" RFC5444/UDP packet anyways.

For something running "on top of" NHDP (e.g. OLSRv2), you need to
channel incoming 4-byte address length message to the right processing
chain, even if they come in a IPv6 UDP packet.

Henning Rogge

---

From: Jiazi YI <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:37:32 +0200

Hi,

I noticed that you mentioned both (independent/combined) in the
applicability statement.
But as the IPv4/IPv6 combined implementation is not standard, and
"communications" are required for independent implementations, I suppose
more details need to be elaborated for each of them? For example, what kind
of communications are required? Do they need to share some configurations?
I think it's important to have interoperable implementations.

best

Jiazi

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:47:32 +0200

On 08/11/2014 12:37 PM, Jiazi YI wrote:
> But as the IPv4/IPv6 combined implementation is not standard,

I do not agree completely... I have written such a combined
implementation and a different "ipv4 only" or "ipv6 only" implementation
would not even notice the difference. In fact, the only thing that would
be different is the presence of the Message TLV inside the IPv6 Hello
messages.

> and
> more details need to be elaborated for each of them? For example, what
> kind of communications are required? Do they need to share some
> configurations? 

I do NOT plan to describe this communication, because I consider this as
an implementation detail. I don't think you should ever try to combine
two different implementations (one IPv4, the other IPv6) on a local node
AND try to get this optimization running.

So "NRL OLSRv2 IPv4" and "NRL OLSRv2 IPv6" could be upgraded to "pair of
NRL OLSRv2 with internal communication for dualstack optimization".

But not "NRL OLSRv2 IPv4" and "XYZ OLSRv2 IPv6".

> I think it's important to have interoperable implementations.

Interoperability is only between routers... As long as the single
combined implementation (or the communicating pair of implementations)
behave like the draft suggests, they should be interoperable to all
existing implementations running on different routers, might they be
IPv4 only, IPv6 only or both (without dualstack optimization).

Henning Rogge

---

From: Jiazi YI <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:18:00 +0200

hi,

> be different is the presence of the Message TLV inside the IPv6 Hello

The "combined" implementation you meant here, is that it can run IPv6/IPv4
simultaneously, or it can be configured to run either IPv4, or IPv6? My
first understanding was the former one, but I think you actually mean the
latter?

Jiazi

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:23:06 +0200

On 08/11/2014 01:18 PM, Jiazi YI wrote:
> hi,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Henning Rogge
> <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> The "combined" implementation you meant here, is that it can run
> IPv6/IPv4 simultaneously, or it can be configured to run either IPv4, or
> IPv6? My first understanding was the former one, but I think you
> actually mean the latter?

All of them.

I can run my implementation in "IPv4 only" mode... I can run it as "IPv6
only"... and I can run it so it opens sockets for both IPv4 and IPv6 and
does the job for both. In the third mode it also handles the dualstack
optimization.

In all three cases its just a single program running.

I have also tested it to run TWO versions of my program, one configured
for "IPv4 only" and one for "IPv6 only".

The difference is just the configuration.

Henning Rogge