Subject: [manet] NHDP Issue - UDP and IP Protocol

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:09:27 +0530

While finishing up MANET-IANA, I thought that we had agreed to proceed
with using UDP for interoperable implementations at this time. I felt
this decision was in part due to the issues raised by Teco, and there
being no clear solution/agreement on running directly over IP at this
time.

My understanding was that we would continue using UDP to carry our PS
protocol messages at this time, and perhaps in the future define how
to carry them directly over IP.

If we want to discuss and define running our protocols directly over
IP (or over both UDP and directly over IP) now, I think we will have
to do it ASAP and delay pushing NHDP to the IESG. If we choose to
stick with UDP for now, I think we can progress without delay.

Please respond with your thoughts on this matter.

Ian Chakeres
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:31:55 +0100

I think a Proposed Standard shall have a minimum set of options, for a
maximum grade of interoperability.

I'll prefer MANET routing protocol packet transport directly over IP, but I
do not totally agree with others not having the checksum field. Having the
"UDP length and checksum fields" in PacketBB pkt-header provide input for
integrity checks, at the same level as UDP. In PacketBB, the checksum field
is missing.

I am fine with having the UDP option, it may be useful for private / local
use.
Someone could rise UDP port numbers could be used for MANET_ID. Oeps, I
did:-). I am strongly against this approach. 

Teco.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Ian Chakeres [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Verzonden: woensdag 6 februari 2008 8:39
> Aan: manet; Thomas Heide Clausen (work); Justin Dean (work);
> Christopher Dearlove; Joe P Macker (home); Teco Boot
> Onderwerp: NHDP Issue - UDP and IP Protocol
>

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:44:15 -0000

I thought that we went to just UDP, and then put directly on
IP back as an option. Why did we request one of the valuable
256 IP protocol types for just a hypothetical future use?

I think this indicates that what we are missing - and as I
have said before, should have been in draft-iana, or a
companion document (absolutely not in packetbb or NHDP) is
a MANET architectural view, which would cover this as a
detail. Right now I don't believe there is an agreement on
this subject (there was when we only had UDP in draft-iana,
but then it was changed).

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Ian Chakeres
Sent: 06 February 2008 07:39
To: manet; Thomas Heide Clausen (work); Justin Dean (work); Dearlove,
Christopher (UK); Joe P Macker (home); Teco Boot
Subject: [manet] NHDP Issue - UDP and IP Protocol

               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

Ian Chakeres

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:48:05 -0000

> do not totally agree with others not having the checksum field.

If you want a checksum, use UDP. But for most radio systems I'm aware
of,
L1 and L2 do a much better job than this, and there's no point.

> I am fine with having the UDP option, it may be useful for private /
local

I think this proves my point in my last email. You think IP should be
standard, UDP as you note. Ian thinks UDP should be standard, IP as
a future option. I think there isn't agreement.