Subject: [manet] DLEP and different control and data interfaces

From: "Veytser, Leonid - 0665 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:32:50 -0400

There are some radio systems that have separate interfaces for data and
control. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like currently DLEP
only handles the case where both DLEP control packets and data packets are
sent in-band (i.e. over the same interface). If two different interfaces are
used for control and data, the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses provided by Peer
Offer message would refer to the control interface of the router and the
radio would have no knowledge of the router's data interface addressing
information. However, the addressing information of the data interface would
be needed for the neighbor session messages (e.g. Neighbor Up).

Has there been any interest in supporting separate data and control
interfaces? It seems that if the Peer Offer message added optional fields to
specify some of the addressing information of the data interface that this
capability would now be supported.

Thanks,

Lenny

------------------------------------------------------------
Leonid Veytser
Airborne Networks Group
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood St
Lexington, MA 02420
781-981-1395

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 20:36:08 +0200

I don't think DLEP makes any assumptions over which interface it is
running or on what kind of transport. Sending it "out of band" would
even be preferred in most cases, because its easier to keep the DLEP
packets from reaching the radio interface.

Henning Rogge

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 20:32, Veytser, Leonid - 0665 - MITLL
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

-- 
Steven Hawkings about cosmic inflation: "An increase of billions of
billions of percent in a tiny fraction of a second. Of course, that
was before the present government."

---

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:50:27 -0400

Actually, from the router's perspective, the assumption is that the  
neighbor exists "on this interface".  This is just one opinion, but  
introducing the notion of separate interfaces for the control plane  
and the data traffic *from the router's perspective* really explodes  
the complexity of the implementation.

Regards,
Stan

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 20:56:16 +0200

Separating might be VLAN tags in case of ethernet...
but it might be something completely different for USB or direct
PCI-Express stuff.

Would a DLEP-over-UDP implementation even care about which interface
it can reach a modems/radios DLEP-service?

Henning Rogge

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 20:50, Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Actually, from the router's perspective, the assumption is that the neighbor
> exists "on this interface".  This is just one opinion, but introducing the
> notion of separate interfaces for the control plane and the data traffic
> *from the router's perspective* really explodes the complexity of the
> implementation.
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
>

---

From: "Veytser, Leonid - 0665 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 15:33:17 -0400

It seems that on the router end there will now need to be a mapping
maintained between each control interface to its respective data interface
and the Peer Offer/Peer Update messages modified to include data
interface's addressing information? Or I am missing more potential
complexity?

Lenny

---

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 20:43:49 -0400

Use of different control/data planes effects basically all  
messages.... I really don;t think it's worth the added complexity.

Regards,
Stan