From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jul 11 08:04:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EFB821F8C26; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.558 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tapWf8zSU4BI; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61B521F8B1F; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110711150408.8105.48241.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:08 -0700 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:04:09 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Simplified Multicast Forwarding Author(s) : Joseph Macker Filename : draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt Pages : 53 Date : 2011-07-10 This document describes a Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF) mechanism that provides basic IP multicast forwarding suitable for limited wireless mesh and mobile ad hoc network (MANET) use. It is mainly applicable in situations where efficient flooding represents an acceptable engineering design trade-off. It defines techniques for multicast duplicate packet detection (DPD), to be applied in the forwarding process, for both IPv4 and IPv6 protocol use. This document also specifies optional mechanisms for applying reduced relay sets to achieve more efficient multicast data distribution within a mesh topology, as compared to classic flooding. Interactions with other protocols, such as use of information provided by concurrently running unicast routing protocols, or interaction with other multicast protocols, as well as multiple deployment approaches are described. Distributed algorithms for selecting reduced relay sets and related discussion are provided in the appendices. Basic issues relating to the operation of multicast MANET border routers are discussed, but ongoing work remains in this area, and is beyond the scope of this document. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jul 11 08:04:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8689B21F8C19 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6d-914F1-F6S for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC4321F8C57 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org ([2001:1890:1112:1::1e]) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QgI1q-00070I-1B; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:10 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD9621F8C19; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s8dcA8aVy7Ga; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0970721F8C0A; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-smf@tools.ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110711150409.8105.5191.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:09 -0700 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:1890:1112:1::1e X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-manet-smf@tools.ietf.org, manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: internet-drafts@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:21:27 -0700 Subject: [manet] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:04:13 -0000 New version (-12) has been submitted for draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed Diff from previous version: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-manet-smf-12 IETF Secretariat. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jul 11 12:29:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB1021F8EB0; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:29:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zalv8WyfgiZe; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007F421F8EAF; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:29:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110711192918.21216.26169.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:29:18 -0700 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-04.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:29:19 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group = of the IETF. Title : MANET Cryptographical Signature TLV Definition Author(s) : Ulrich Herberg Thomas Heide Clausen Filename : draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-04.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2011-07-11 This document describes general and flexible TLVs (type-length-value structure) for representing cryptographic signatures as well as timestamps, using the generalized MANET packet/message format [RFC5444]. It defines two Packet TLVs, two Message TLVs, and two Address Block TLVs, for affixing cryptographic signatures and timestamps to a packet, message and address, respectively. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-04.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jul 11 12:32:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AD611E819F; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZiVgZcxOGU8; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807C711E818B; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110711193245.22543.18176.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:32:45 -0700 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-08.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:32:46 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Disco= very Protocol Author(s) : Ulrich Herberg Robert G. Cole Ian D Chakeres Filename : draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-08.txt Pages : 67 Date : 2011-07-11 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects for configuring parameters of the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) process on a router. The MIB defined in this memo, denoted NHDP-MIB, also reports state, performance information and notifications. This additional state and performance information is useful to troubleshoot problems and performance issues during neighbor discovery. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-08.txt From ulrich@herberg.name Mon Jul 11 14:13:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE1111E8209 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:13:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kmulRj7ZtTXt for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11BE111E8193 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so4455566vxi.31 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:13:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LTsV3HwppLbtgMZbAplEn8MemsIpNjihitPgbZRNsG4=; b=eI/jBgwOPg+pumO8XUgQ0OqZ6xpYiqPthSfk2Ir5PkmnijYGv8grkS0kePb3B4OEu5 HvPNKn8PCH3LSyhghgXooXh9Xf61eCbElpYt+Az87zjmHV8b5GwFVY7K0QLu0JBBBnbf gXXRTgGzrfdHSlbk0SxxrNDJgXczlXcTWArT0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.38.72 with SMTP id a8mr1547513vce.163.1310418834320; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.46.70 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:13:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110711193245.22543.18176.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20110711193245.22543.18176.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:13:54 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54ee60e206cf604a7d1a95b Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-08.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:13:56 -0000 --bcaec54ee60e206cf604a7d1a95b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Bob and I have worked on the NHDP-MIB, mostly on Justin's comments. Please read the document and provide comments. Best regards Ulrich On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:32 PM, wrote: > 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 : Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood > Discovery Protocol > Author(s) : Ulrich Herberg > Robert G. Cole > Ian D Chakeres > Filename : draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-08.txt > Pages : 67 > Date : 2011-07-11 > > This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) > for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. > In particular, it describes objects for configuring parameters of the > Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) process on a router. The MIB > defined in this memo, denoted NHDP-MIB, also reports state, > performance information and notifications. This additional state and > performance information is useful to troubleshoot problems and > performance issues during neighbor discovery. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-08.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-08.txt > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > --bcaec54ee60e206cf604a7d1a95b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

Bob and I have worked on the NHDP-MIB, mostly on Justin's co= mments. Please read the document and provide comments.


Best reg= ards
Ulrich

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12= :32 PM, <= internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the = on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Mobil= e Ad-hoc Networks Working Group of the IETF.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : Definition of Managed Objects f= or the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Ulrich Herberg
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Robert G. Cole
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Ian D Chakeres
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-08.txt<= br> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 67
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2011-07-11

=A0 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) =A0 for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. =A0 In particular, it describes objects for configuring parameters of the<= br> =A0 Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) process on a router. =A0The MIB=
=A0 defined in this memo, denoted NHDP-MIB, also reports state,
=A0 performance information and notifications. =A0This additional state an= d
=A0 performance information is useful to troubleshoot problems and
=A0 performance issues during neighbor discovery.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mane= t-nhdp-mib-08.txt

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

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-= nhdp-mib-08.txt
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--bcaec54ee60e206cf604a7d1a95b-- From ulrich@herberg.name Mon Jul 11 14:19:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC4D11E8284 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:19:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IMWHBUZ6dAUU for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA35211E8278 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so4492024vws.31 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:19:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=surWb3zDQyHoQnh40q1UR7M6aIacicOHgugUd7bmKkk=; b=Mdb+EnfOvaPODDvmnlQJ0JF1G8DtxBHwfaeBPGA6i2e+IBu9o13ZSugnSLl9VCN9Yn zH+dxj9sBTeBkpokE2ymH902vIWb5wVzNLcLL+EBHQM68xuXFCqKH8ToN4wWKaPoL5Gp vUOo0qBUADFrWdXbFk94EHx7qjz6RLMjpITHM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.198.194 with SMTP id ep2mr1538138vcb.233.1310419158869; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.46.70 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:19:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110711192918.21216.26169.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20110711192918.21216.26169.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:19:18 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba53acdc78a8e904a7d1bc5d Cc: Christopher Dearlove Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-04.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:19:21 -0000 --90e6ba53acdc78a8e904a7d1bc5d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I have updated the packetbb-sec draft. The major change is Chris' request to make a general framework for signatures (with TLV type extension 0), and a specific decomposition of a signature into a cryptographic function over a hash value (with type extension 1). Other type extensions can thus be specified. Please provide comments on the draft. I have also updated draft-herberg-manet-nhdp-sec to reference to the new packetbb-sec. The draft certainly requires a bit more work, but so far I have not received much feedback whether the working group is interested in this work (and would like to adopt it as WG draft). Please provide comments and feedback if you are interested in that draft. Ulrich On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, wrote: > 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 : MANET Cryptographical Signature TLV Definition > Author(s) : Ulrich Herberg > Thomas Heide Clausen > Filename : draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-04.txt > Pages : 17 > Date : 2011-07-11 > > This document describes general and flexible TLVs (type-length-value > structure) for representing cryptographic signatures as well as > timestamps, using the generalized MANET packet/message format > [RFC5444]. It defines two Packet TLVs, two Message TLVs, and two > Address Block TLVs, for affixing cryptographic signatures and > timestamps to a packet, message and address, respectively. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-04.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-04.txt > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > --90e6ba53acdc78a8e904a7d1bc5d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

I have updated the packetbb-sec draft. The major change is Chris= ' request to make a general framework for signatures (with TLV type ext= ension 0), and a specific decomposition of a signature into a cryptographic= function over a hash value (with type extension 1). Other type extensions = can thus be specified.

Please provide comments on the draft.

I have also updated draft-= herberg-manet-nhdp-sec to reference to the new packetbb-sec. The draft cert= ainly requires a bit more work, but so far I have not received much feedbac= k whether the working group is interested in this work (and would like to a= dopt it as WG draft). Please provide comments and feedback if you are inter= ested in that draft.

Ulrich

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:29 = PM, <inte= rnet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group = of the IETF.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : MANET Cryptographical Signature= TLV Definition
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Ulrich Herberg
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Thomas Heide Clausen =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-04.= txt
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 17
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2011-07-11

=A0 This document describes general and flexible TLVs (type-length-value =A0 structure) for representing cryptographic signatures as well as
=A0 timestamps, using the generalized MANET packet/message format
=A0 [RFC5444]. =A0It defines two Packet TLVs, two Message TLVs, and two =A0 Address Block TLVs, for affixing cryptographic signatures and
=A0 timestamps to a packet, message and address, respectively.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-= manet-packetbb-sec-04.txt

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

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ma= net-packetbb-sec-04.txt
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--90e6ba53acdc78a8e904a7d1bc5d-- From ulrich@herberg.name Mon Jul 11 14:41:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009B911E82C9 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:41:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hAOcanPWYwZu for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2880811E80AB for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so4509525vws.31 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:41:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=a6r8K6j4RstXqtOqa4Rgwc+CEU5WhFj3++Cq8L1/PIs=; b=WUprV97BenZO9T4fswHCu/BVtZtsnom/uj8DSXOCUJjYgsdUNhENlsgalCHswVD0iA /hjzlRyUUKx3ejS63RpHLuqj1z8hrLd5nnt960COI8FpT9dvCDTlCDJ71QA5F2brHDxn UyUQvEpVMkZg8rbSW0cU+gIvYnvDVxwLMDNds= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.118.202 with SMTP id w10mr1542706vcq.198.1310420467737; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.46.70 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:41:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110711150409.8105.5191.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20110711150409.8105.5191.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:41:07 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00221543b4407c646b04a7d20aed Subject: Re: [manet] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:41:10 -0000 --00221543b4407c646b04a7d20aed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I have looked through the new revision of SMF, and I am satisfied with the changes. Thanks Joe for the effort! Some nits: - section 3: "a design goal is, that" (remove comma) - section 3: "[DHS08],and [DHG09]" (add blank before "and") - section 5, bullet 7: "the TTL/hop-limit of the forwarded packet MUST be decremented by one"; add: ", and the hop-count, if present, MUST be incremented by one." Regards Ulrich On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:04 AM, wrote: > New version (-12) has been submitted for draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt. > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt > Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed > > Diff from previous version: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-manet-smf-12 > > IETF Secretariat. > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > --00221543b4407c646b04a7d20aed Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

I have looked through the new revision of SMF, and I am satisfie= d with the changes. Thanks Joe for the effort!

Some nits:

- s= ection 3: "a design goal is, that" (remove comma)
- section 3:= "[DHS08],and [DHG09]" (add blank before &= quot;and")
- section 5, bullet 7: "the TTL/hop-limit of the forwarded packet MUST= be decremented by one"; add:
", and the hop-count, if present= , MUST be incremented by one."

Regards
Ulrich

=
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:04 AM, <internet-drafts@ietf.or= g> wrote:
New version (-12) has been submitted for draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-smf= -12.txt
Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed

Diff from previous version:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-manet-smf-1= 2

IETF Secretariat.
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--00221543b4407c646b04a7d20aed-- From yi.jiazi@gmail.com Tue Jul 12 08:38:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FFA21F8CC5 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:38:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2EQCAlStdhoY for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:38:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FA921F8C89 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:38:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so3903724wyj.31 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:38:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lWsRRraSrzC+wixl2p1G75Zw2oxj44P7vR9KaHOqhmQ=; b=mE1yDFu8V4HuGmgW6MPLATNQYoF8FnTtOsBezQAsdDj+4ZjAU/OaPnhnVKc40Z+62l viHk43RPrHBhNDb3qMChTaViTtGrgq/w1Dins5CkaZDvJLEw5g7Q/IC5cI+VyZNqSyRQ zReo8fdsMVboq7LoVUE9L88iBgP2uWUvEjEXU= Received: by 10.227.12.18 with SMTP id v18mr49294wbv.89.1310485097766; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jz-mac-pro.local (sphinx.lix.polytechnique.fr [129.104.11.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gd1sm6284119wbb.27.2011.07.12.08.38.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:38:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E1C6A5E.2090701@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:38:06 +0200 From: Jiazi YI User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org References: <20110711150409.8105.5191.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20110711150409.8105.5191.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [manet] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:38:20 -0000 Hi, Thanks for the effort of Joe and SMF team. I'm satisfied with the new version of SMF. Just some nits: ====================== In section 6.1: An SMF implementation MUST be configured to operate either in H-DPD or I-DPD mode, and perform the corresponding tasks, outlined in Section 6.1.1 and Section 6.1.3. H-DPD is in section 6.1.2, and I-DPD is in section 6.1.3, right? ====================== section 6.1.1: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... |0|0|0| SMF_DPD | Opt. Data Len | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |H| DPD Identifier Option Fields or Hash Assist Value ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IPv6 SMF_DPD Hop-by-Hop Header Option "Option Type" = (Lower 5 bits pending IANA assignment, highest order MUST be 000). By having these three bits be zero, this specification requires that routers not recognizing this option type should skip over this option and continue processing the header and that the option must not change en route [RFC2460]. two problems: 1. the figure is not numbered. 2. In the figure of new version, OptType is changed from SMF_DPD, but in the following text, it is still "Option Type" =========================== regards On 7/11/11 5:04 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > New version (-12) has been submitted for draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt. > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-smf-12.txt > Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed > > Diff from previous version: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-manet-smf-12 > > IETF Secretariat. > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet -- Jiazi YI www.jiaziyi.com Postdoctoral researcher Hipercom@LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 91128 Palaiseau Cedex France From jpmacker@gmail.com Thu Jul 14 17:00:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5074921F88A6 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:00:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NWKOvmzdon1i for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9312721F8892 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so555020wyj.31 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:00:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=M1fL6y0Pgqz23Bj//TJ2133VlNA3gGxVipVBSBZgtCA=; b=PpCStuR4gmxrwG7Sdb13A7uwdLTCPVTKRBo+P3+JXmYDC6IO5z2Pzz4gp8EBR15q/d LAgtYBNg9xMPQmPwT+sJM8SIUDWET712D1vlqLkXF8dfAGGH0PV9rzWYklRLkzbDdW+g GciSks5VaIQQQLySEq/tz/gbLVr9Aoox8YAJ4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.233.30 with SMTP id o30mr2531561weq.59.1310688018695; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.178.140 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:00:18 -0400 Message-ID: From: Joseph Macker To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [manet] nhdp-sec to WG document X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:00:20 -0000 I previously posted a message giving the WG more time on feedback to nhdp-sec prior to moving it to WG document status. draft-herberg-manet-nhdp-sec-02 is now the document in question. I now request that this document be considered for WG adoption. If there is no significant disagreement we will adopt this document after the Quebec meeting. -Joe From theoleyre@unistra.fr Sun Jul 17 10:00:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF3E21F863E for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:00:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.835 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f8cPmLJA9SKN for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (mailhost.u-strasbg.fr [IPv6:2001:660:2402::157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05FD321F861D for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from md2.u-strasbg.fr (md2.u-strasbg.fr [IPv6:2001:660:2402::187]) by mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id p6HH0eat038519 ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:00:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from theoleyre@unistra.fr) Received: from mailserver.u-strasbg.fr (ms6.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.204.15]) by md2.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.4/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id p6HH0efo048793 ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:00:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from theoleyre@unistra.fr) Received: from [192.168.1.95] (99.111.91.79.rev.sfr.net [79.91.111.99]) (user=theoleyre mech=PLAIN) by mailserver.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.4/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id p6HH0cZu089251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:00:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from theoleyre@unistra.fr) From: Fabrice Theoleyre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:00:38 +0200 Message-Id: <1D2A5FEB-4078-419A-9A88-6082D80B4C61@unistra.fr> To: asr-forum@cines.fr, tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu, manet@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.5 (mailhost.u-strasbg.fr [IPv6:2001:660:2402::157]); Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:00:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [manet] PhD student Position in wireless sensor networks at University of Strasbourg (LSIIT) X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:01:40 -0000 --- Context --- The Network & Protocols group (http://lsipit.u-strasbg.fr/rp-en/), part = of the LSIIT (http://lsiit.u-strasbg.fr) offers 1 PhD fellowship. The = position concerns the Wireless Sensor Networks area. The PhD student = will participate to the IRIS project (All IP Networks for the FutuRe = Internet of Smart Objects) and will strongly collaborate with our = partners. If you join the RP group, you will: =95 join a 3 year PhD programme =95 study in a dynamic and highly innovative environment in the LSIIT = (the French language is a plus but not a requirement) =95 benefit from strong collaboration with our industrial and academic = partners in France and Europe=20 =95 obtain a fellowship starting from =80 19,899 gross per year We encourage all highly motivated and excellent candidates to apply for = this position. We aim in particular at tackling the following challenges: =95 network mobility for WSN =95 IEEE 802.15.4 limits and improvements =95 experimental guided design for WSN --- How to apply --- Applicants must have a Master degree in Computer Science or other = relevant field. Good programming skills are required. The following = field are particularly interesting: =95 Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks (IEEE 802.15.4, RPL) =95 Distributed algorithms =95 Simulations (wsnet, ns2) =95 Experiments (mica2, telosb, etc). Applicants should email to theoleyre@unistra.fr including: =95 a CV =95 the grades for the last 3 years and their ranking in their master =95 a cover letter describing why they are interested in this PhD = fellowship. For more information, please contact Fabrice Theoleyre = (theoleyre@unistra.fr) and take a look at = http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/~theoleyre/index.php?n=3DResearch.WSNFISS. We have no closing date: the position is open until filled. Best regards, ____________________________________________ Fabrice Theoleyre LSIIT / UMR 7005 CNRS Research Scientist Tel : +33 3 68 85 45 33 Fax : +33 3 68 85 44 55 http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/~theoleyre/ ____________________________________________ From yulei.frank.wu@gmail.com Mon Jul 18 03:02:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BE221F857E for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:02:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.335 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ivvQjNwo8Jw9 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAEC21F8515 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so3177744iye.31 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:02:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=5iERJhcFiipN/65BVB40wUKFsEpjKsF27ht4d+K7kyY=; b=oAwSXOC0S7goYfxNi6QsbN2/R+rw68sgdKd21FYKpy8x9Q4GPubqauiwzl9HWPSVXH rn7h1Dk3y2TFKGrYqYSL6FTr47Rvnv+j7eUgT7RiYrz8SZfui3Jl7E5XErL8Y1CytJrw clSSiJDAiFdWs86GsdxyI1lceojgD7xZnjnjU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.84.85 with SMTP id i21mr5643841ibl.34.1310983372287; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.151.209 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:02:52 +0800 Message-ID: From: Yulei Wu To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517741016362ee304a8551a22 Subject: [manet] [Two Weeks Left to Submit Papers] to WNM-2011 (Wireless Networks and Multimedia), Changsha, China (EI Compendex, ISTP, IEEE Xplore) X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:02:59 -0000 --001517741016362ee304a8551a22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 [Apologize if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] *=== Extended Paper Submission Deadline: Monday, 01 August 2011 ===* CALL FOR PAPERS The Second International Workshop on Wireless Networks and Multimedia (WNM-2011), Changsha, China, 16-18 November, 2011 http://scim.brad.ac.uk/~hmibrahi/WNM-2011/ To be held in conjunction with the 6th FCST-2011. The accepted papers from this workshop will be published in the FCST-11 conference/workshop proceedings by IEEE Computer Society, and will be *indexed by EI Compendex and ISTP*. ********************************************** Distinguished selected high-quality papers from the workshop, after further significant extensions, will be recommended for submission and possible publication in the Elsevier Journal *- Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory (Indexed by SCI)* ********************************************** INTRODUCTION ============ The wireless communication technologies have evolved quickly over the past years. As the explosive growth in broadband wireless networks, multimedia applications will dominate the future wireless communication society, resulting in non-trivial problems in terms of available capacity, reliability, quality-of-service, delay, and throughput. To successfully support wireless multimedia applications, it is necessary to improve the state-of-the-art techniques (such as radio resource management, mobility, handoff, and location management, etc.) in the multimedia transmission over wireless networks in order to provide quality-of-service guarantees between the end-users and achieve a high quality-of-experience for end-users. This workshop will address the important problems and challenges caused by the transmission of multimedia applications over wireless networks. The workshop aims to bring together computer scientists and engineers in different disciplines to share and exchange their experience and ideas and discuss state-of-the-art and in-progress research on all aspects of wireless networks and multimedia applications. The topics of particular interest include, but are not limited to: - Ultra-Wideband Networks - Wireless Ad Hoc and Mesh Networks - Wireless Personal Area Networks - Wireless Local Area Networks - Wireless Sensor Networks - Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks - Cellular Networks - WiMAX - Optical Wireless Access Networks - Mobile Computing and Wireless Communications - Multimedia Communications and Services - Congestion and Admission Control - Wireless MAC Protocols: Design and Analysis - Quality of Service Provisioning - Wireless Network Security and Privacy - Cognitive Radio and Software Defined Radio - Cross-Layer Design and Adaptation - Radio Resource Management - Mobility, Handoff and Location Management - Performance Modeling and Evaluation IMPORTANT DATES =============== Paper Submission: 01 August, 2011 Paper Acceptance: 30 August, 2011 Camera-ready Paper: 30 September, 2011 Conference Dates: 16-18 November, 2011 PAPER SUBMISSION GUIDELINE ========================== Prospective authors are invited to submit manuscripts reporting original unpublished research and recent developments in the topics related to the workshop. The length of the papers should not exceed 6 pages + 2 pages for overlength charges (IEEE Computer Society Proceedings Manuscripts style: two columns, single-spaced, 10-point font), including figures and references. You can confirm the IEEE Computer Society Proceedings Author Guidelines at the following web page: URL: http://computer.org/cspress/instruct.htm Papers should be submitted electronically in PDF format only by sending it as an e-mail attachment to h.m.ibrahim@bradford.ac.uk and CC to wnm2011@gmail.com All papers will be peer reviewed and the comments will be provided to the authors. Once accepted, the paper will be included into the IEEE conference proceedings published by IEEE Computer Society Press (indexed by EI Compendex and ISTP). Authors (at least one) of any accepted paper are requested to register at the conference. ORGANIZATIONS ============= Workshop Chairs Yulei Wu, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Guojun Wang, Central South University, China Ahmed Al-Dubai, Edinburgh Napier University, UK Publicity Chair Hatem Musbah Ibrahim, University of Bradford, UK Program Committee See WNM-2011 website: http://www.scim.brad.ac.uk/~hmibrahi/WNM-2011/ --001517741016362ee304a8551a22 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[Apologize if you receive= multiple copies of this CFP]

=A0

=3D=3D=3D Extended Paper Submission Deadline: Monday, 01 August = 2011 =3D=3D=3D

=A0

CALL FOR PAPERS

=A0

The Second International Workshop on Wireless Networks = and Multimedia (WNM-2011), Changsha, China, 16-18 November, 2011

=A0

http://scim.brad.ac.uk/~hmibrahi= /WNM-2011/<= /span>

=A0

To be held in conjunction with th= e 6th FCST-2011= . The accepted papers from this workshop= will be published in the FCST-11 conference/workshop proceedings by IEEE C= omputer Society, and will be inde= xed by EI Compendex and ISTP.

=A0

**********************************************

Distinguished selected high-quality papers from the wor= kshop, after further significant extensions, will be recommended for submis= sion and possible publication in the Elsevier Journal =

- Simulation = Modelling Practice and Theory (Indexed by SCI)

**********************************************

=A0

INTRODUCTION=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The wire= less communication technologies have evolved quickly over the past years. A= s the explosive growth in broadband wireless networks, multimedia applicati= ons will dominate the future wireless communication society, resulting in n= on-trivial problems in terms of available capacity, reliability, quality-of= -service, delay, and throughput.

=A0

To succe= ssfully support wireless multimedia applications, it is necessary to improv= e the state-of-the-art techniques (such as radio resource management, mobil= ity, handoff, and location management, etc.) in the multimedia transmission= over wireless networks in order to provide quality-of-service guarantees b= etween the end-users and achieve a high quality-of-experience for end-users= .

=A0

This wor= kshop will address the important problems and challenges caused by the tran= smission of multimedia applications over wireless networks. The workshop ai= ms to bring together computer scientists and engineers in different discipl= ines to share and exchange their experience and ideas and discuss state-of-= the-art and in-progress research on all aspects of wireless networks and mu= ltimedia applications.

=A0

The topics of particular interest= =A0include, but are not limited to:

- Ultra-Wideband Networks

- Wireless Ad Hoc and Mesh Networks=

- Wireless Personal Area Networks

- Wireless Local Area Networks

- Wireless Sensor Networks

- Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks

- Cellular Networks

- WiMAX

- Optical Wireless Access Networks<= /span>

- Mobile Computing and Wireless Communications

- Multimedia Communications and Services

- Congestion and Admission Control<= /span>

- Wireless MAC Protocols: Design and Analysis

- Quality of Service Provisioning

- Wireless Network Security and Privacy

- Cognitive Radio and Software Defined Radio

- Cross-Layer Design and Adaptation=

- Radio Resource Management<= /p>

- Mobility, Handoff and Location Management

- Performance Modeling and Evaluation

=A0

IMPORTANT DATES

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Paper Submission:=A0=A0=A0 01 August, 2011=

Paper Acceptance:= =A0=A0=A0 30 August, 2011

Camera-ready Paper:=A0 30 September, 2011

Conference Dates:= =A0=A0=A0 16-18 November, 2011

=A0

=A0

PAPER SUBMISSION GUIDELINE=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Prospective authors are invited to submit manuscripts r= eporting original unpublished research and recent developments in the topic= s related to the workshop. The length of the papers should not exceed 6 pag= es + 2 pages for overlength charges (IEEE Computer Society Proceedings Manu= scripts style: two columns, single-spaced, 10-point font), including figure= s and references.

=A0

You can confirm the IEEE Computer Society Proceedings A= uthor Guidelines at the following web page: URL: http://computer.org/cspress/instruct.htm

=A0

Papers should be submitted electronically in PDF format= only by sending it as an e-mail attachment to h.m.ibrahim@bradford.ac.uk and CC to wnm2011@gmail.com

=A0

All papers will be peer reviewed and the comments will = be provided to the authors. Once accepted, the paper will be included into = the IEEE conference proceedings published by IEEE Computer Society Press (i= ndexed by EI Compendex and ISTP). Authors (at least one) of any accepted pa= per are requested to register at the conference.

=A0

=A0

ORGANIZATIONS

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Workshop Cha= irs

Yulei Wu,= Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

= Guojun Wang, Central S= outh University, China

Ahmed Al-Dubai, Edinburgh Napier University,= UK

=A0

Hatem Musbah Ibrahim= , University of Bradford, UK

=A0

See WNM-2011 website: http://www.scim.brad.ac.uk/~hmibrahi/W= NM-2011/

--001517741016362ee304a8551a22-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Jul 20 07:44:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD50021F8A95 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.545 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qtxZlwzYT7j for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFD521F8A80 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6KEiH6D025635; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:44:17 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6KEiG96025629 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:44:17 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:44:16 +0100 Message-ID: <028b01cc46eb$806085d0$81219170$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AcxG60lymjegi4j+SrqPpCv0rnkuZw== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-smf X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:44:22 -0000 Hi, I have dome my usual AD review prior to starting IETF last call. The purpose of the review is to find any issues that might pop up during last call or IESG review and (hopefully) smooth the passage of the draft through the approval process. This is a solid and well-written document. Thanks! I had a concern about the IANA section, but this has been resolved in discussions with the authors, chairs, and IANA. That leaves me with just one concern (below). We can handle this through discussion and possibly a revised version, depending on the outcome. The document is in "AD Review :: Point Raised - writeup needed" state while we sort this out. Thanks, Adrian --- I am confused by the requirements for DPD. In section 4 you have: Interoperable SMF implementations MUST use a common DPD approach In section 6 you also have: For IPv4 and IPv6, both, this document describes two basic multicast duplicate packet detection mechanisms: header content identification- based (I-DPD) and hash-based (H-DPD) duplicate detection. And you go on to say: Because of the potential addition of a hop-by-hop option header with IPv6, all SMF routers in the same SMF deployments MUST be configured so as to use a common mechanism and DPD algorithm. So, for a given IP family you have defined more than one DPD mechanism, yet you require that all deployed routers in a network use the same DPD mechanism. Although one might hope that all nodes participating in an experiment are set up the same way, your experimental networks are quite large and I think you need to provide: - a default DPD mechanism - a way of detecting (and so alarming) a DPD mismatch. From ulrich@herberg.name Wed Jul 20 13:56:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7B821F853A for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:56:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ycH-chPlIiah for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EC121F854F for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so569301vws.31 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:56:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YattCTx0v1PA21jHDaJcjGw2Y/86Vr6u8ctsaAmmeD0=; b=Xsc15L46LiuJo3r9Cf5qCDJQBAcV5ZSFAkGjCZiegk7e0by4nUcisg5X2W5jvOCKPg tdpyvsfmf/n0Nq1LTz1vafN51fq7+mviRZI7Tn371tpPReHVNwSrUwwRg6ZlBckOv3yz YBnC9Rn4ATXfmYB9ElLEwlv3aLryZknlIzbjQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.99.73 with SMTP id eo9mr1388072vdb.235.1311195362232; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.104.134 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:56:02 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f31facc078704a886752c Cc: Joe Macker Subject: [manet] Agenda and slides X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:56:07 -0000 --20cf307f31facc078704a886752c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, the MANET WG meeting will take place on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at 1520-1700 and continues at 1710-1810 in room 208 AB. Please note the agenda of the meeting: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/agenda/manet.txt If you have any comments, suggestions on the agenda or requests for additional slots, please contact the WG chairs (or me). I also ask the presenters to send me their slides until next Monday. Best regards Ulrich --20cf307f31facc078704a886752c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,

the MANET WG meeting will take place on Tuesday, July 26, 20= 11, at 1520-1700 and continues at 1710-1810 in room 208 AB.

Please n= ote the agenda of the meeting:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81= /agenda/manet.txt

If you have any comments, suggestions on the agenda or requests for add= itional slots, please contact the WG chairs (or me).

I also ask the= presenters to send me their slides until next Monday.

Best regards<= br> Ulrich
--20cf307f31facc078704a886752c-- From ulrich@herberg.name Mon Jul 25 20:41:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893F711E80E3 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:41:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lTJPHeTUXYp1 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:40:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0D711E8071 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:40:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so53203vxi.31 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:40:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=7531PWcDpgN5VBVKyX3GKbadB3v/ihvvs5lHB58m1NM=; b=s8FF/kFErAa8AocSA95JQsbmVkBrb3yJ09zESWO3U3bygScEyWGY2FsBk4t1q39hnm bFqrOUcRKs4wQRtqQd1VX1vZ306Qs00K8SstQgEYLJNMlvMsV7fEDYOeStt4uLbvMb2C U2DNn9IJNAw7dfFlmanzFPyrdajx69VI04Pio= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.61.11 with SMTP id r11mr835719vch.170.1311651657601; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.2.15 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:40:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:40:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4e88756d1ed4a404a8f0b39f Subject: Re: [manet] Agenda and slides X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 03:41:00 -0000 --e0cb4e88756d1ed4a404a8f0b39f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, could I please remind all presenters to submit their slides as soon as possible? From a number of presenters, I have not yet received the slides. Thanks in advance Ulrivh On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > Hi all, > > the MANET WG meeting will take place on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at > 1520-1700 and continues at 1710-1810 in room 208 AB. > > Please note the agenda of the meeting: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/agenda/manet.txt > > If you have any comments, suggestions on the agenda or requests for > additional slots, please contact the WG chairs (or me). > > I also ask the presenters to send me their slides until next Monday. > > Best regards > Ulrich > --e0cb4e88756d1ed4a404a8f0b39f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

could I please remind all presenters to submit their slides as s= oon as possible? From a number of presenters, I have not yet received the s= lides.

Thanks in advance
Ulrivh

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote:=
Hi all,

the MANET WG meeting will take place on Tuesday, July 26, 20= 11, at 1520-1700 and continues at 1710-1810 in room 208 AB.

Please n= ote the agenda of the meeting:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81= /agenda/manet.txt

If you have any comments, suggestions on the agenda or requests for add= itional slots, please contact the WG chairs (or me).

I also ask the= presenters to send me their slides until next Monday.

Best regards<= br> Ulrich

--e0cb4e88756d1ed4a404a8f0b39f-- From Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com Tue Jul 26 02:32:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B7321F8B06 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:32:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J373um8EB149 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ukmta3.baesystems.com (ukmta3.baesystems.com [20.133.40.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B5421F86B6 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:32:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,268,1309734000"; d="scan'208";a="148092765" Received: from unknown (HELO baemasodc004.greenlnk.net) ([10.108.36.11]) by Baemasodc001ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2011 10:32:43 +0100 Received: from glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET (glkms1102.greenlnk.net [10.108.36.193]) by baemasodc004.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p6Q9Wg6x032515; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:32:42 +0100 Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.100]) by glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:32:42 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:32:41 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: OLSRv2 Thread-Index: AcxLReB7tjqD2SWIQoS0M3/PQVFl5QALw+TA References: From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2011 09:32:42.0111 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7B748F0:01CC4B76] Cc: Thomas Heide Clausen , Joseph Macker Subject: [manet] OLSRv2 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:32:45 -0000 I have just uploaded a new version of the OLSRv2 ID, the first to incorporate metrics. Unfortunately time ran out before we could finish it completely, and the section and appendix on calculating MPRs have not yet been updated (the draft points this out). We hope however that what is there is enough to show we are nearly there, and before this afternoon's meeting (which unfortunately I won't be at, even disembodied). While mainly following the plan laid out in the link metrics draft (which is now history) we have made a few simplifications and improvements. The most significant of these we hope meets some comments made on the list. A brief summary follows, but for details see the draft. Link metrics were using a 4+4bit exponent/mantissa form that ranged from about 16 to 2^20. They now use a 4+8 modified exponent/mantissa form that ranges from 1 to just less than 2^24 (hence with 32 bit route metrics). These 12 bits occupy the last 12 bits of a now 2 octet value field, the first 4 bits now being 4 flags that indicate the type(s) of metric: incoming/outgoing and link/neighbor (neighbor metric being the formerly named router metric that is the minimum metric to a neighbor). This replaces a rather arcane use of 2 bits in the type extension field for this information, so now the type extension has a clean meaning of link metric type (increasing the number possible from 64 to 256 - where in this draft we just define 0 as administrative action, i.e. it's your MANET, you should know what this means). Feedback welcome of course. We'll be trying (non-IETF workloads permitting) to get another draft out with the missing pieces (currently partly written) in, and with a proper read through and clean-up that we've also not found time for. Please let us know any nits you find - depending on how fast you are we may have already found them, but may not have. Hope those of you in Quebec City have a successful meeting and trip. Christopher -- Christopher Dearlove Technology Leader, Communications Group Communications and Networks Capability 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 ________________________________ From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ulrich Herberg Sent: 26 July 2011 04:41 To: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] Agenda and slides *** WARNING *** This message has originated outside your organisation, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. Hi, could I please remind all presenters to submit their slides as soon as possible? From a number of presenters, I have not yet received the slides. Thanks in advance Ulrivh On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: Hi all, the MANET WG meeting will take place on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at 1520-1700 and continues at 1710-1810 in room 208 AB. Please note the agenda of the meeting: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/agenda/manet.txt If you have any comments, suggestions on the agenda or requests for additional slots, please contact the WG chairs (or me). I also ask the presenters to send me their slides until next Monday. Best regards Ulrich ******************************************************************** 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 internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jul 26 02:33:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0A221F8C1E; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:33:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ca3Rbh0cn3Yw; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418E121F8BF2; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:33:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.56 Message-ID: <20110726093341.5123.5495.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:33:41 -0700 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-12.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:33:41 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group = of the IETF. Title : The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 Author(s) : Thomas Heide Clausen Christopher Dearlove Philippe Jacquet Filename : draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-12.txt Pages : 99 Date : 2011-07-26 This document describes version 2 of the Optimized Link State Routing (OLSRv2) protocol for Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-12.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-12.txt From bebemaster@gmail.com Tue Jul 26 08:03:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5392121F874E for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:03:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TPGz23+4WPSY for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:03:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f176.google.com (mail-ey0-f176.google.com [209.85.215.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01AC421F8B72 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eya28 with SMTP id 28so886723eya.21 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:03:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=k1NewC8r63xP/QNjy01mjWRVqm1sGHIXmXY3PQOJa1M=; b=nQ2o0+aFLdoRObibDfixUKdx2+9H6dzCUZHOcKD9yyOLlNMWf7zoOBF4ksp58uInAj OYK/3lSBOBkpid/hxPplEbMTwaSC/p0OcAn0aLP7CwLBPNUtzGsceYH1/B7DslJw1eNX F/TA6N0/vGa5sof+1oVC7EAhLn5czJIlv3Sbo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.4.198 with SMTP id 6mr900081ebs.146.1311692618674; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.13.146 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:03:38 -0400 Message-ID: From: Justin Dean To: Ulrich Herberg , Bob Cole , manet@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c34dc97335904a8fa3ccf X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:30:33 -0700 Subject: [manet] Mib v8 review X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:19:52 -0000 --0015174c34dc97335904a8fa3ccf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Below is my review of version 8 of the NHDP MIB document. This most recent version has addressed many of my concerns and nearly all of the comments this go around are related to cleaning up terminology which was mucked up b= y the changes. Great work guys. Justin Dean Section 5.3 s/in [RFC6130]/of [RFC6130]/ Two constructs, i.e., TEXTUAL CONVENTIONs, are defined in support of the tables in the State Group. Two constructs, i.e., TEXTUAL CONVENTIONs, are defined to support the State Group tables. You guys use=85. "virtual neighbors and neighbor interfaces." then later use "address sets, virtual interfaces and virtual routers" Suggest you use the same order and terminology (also slightly confused on where the "address sets" came from as the rest of this section is talking about 2 constructs) Section 5.4 "That means that there is a change in the set of corresponding Link Tuples of for that Neighbor Tuple=85." "A change in the set of Link Tuples corresponding to the appropriate Neighbor Tuple=85" "A 2-hop neighbor is said to become "nbrup" when" "A 2-hop neighbor becomes "nbrup" when" Section 7 "A locally arbitrary unique identifier associated with a discovered NHDP neighbor virtual interface." "An arbitrary, locally unique identifier associated with a virtual interfac= e of a discovered NHDP neighbor." Cut the below as it isn't really important and only adds confusion (all addresses of a 2 hop neighbor which are being advertised by NHDP will be discovered) "Due to the nature of the NHDP protocol, it may not be possible for the local router to determine all 2-hop neighbor addresses associated with a single interface." "Further, the local router may not know if two distinct address sets belong to the same interface on a 2-hop neighbor or to two different interfaces." "Due to the nature of the NHDP protocol, the local router may not know if two distinct addresses belong to the same interface of a neighbor or to two different interfaces" Note: you guys keep switching between "virtual neighbor interface" and "neighbor virtual interface" I suggest you s/neighbor virtual interface/virtual neighbor interface/ "A locally arbitrary unique identifier associated with an NHDP discovered virtual per router." "An arbitrary, locally unique identifier associated with a virtual router o= f a discovered NHDP neighbor (one or two hop)." Note:same thing with mixing terminology of "virtual peer router" "virtual router" "virtual neighbor" I suggest you use "virtual neighbor" as NHDP nodes are not always routers. Also suggest replacement of all instance of router with neighbor or node. "Given the nature of the NHDP protocol, the local router may have identifie= d multiple virtual routers which in fact are one and the same." Due to the nature of the NHDP protocol, the local router may identify multiple virtual neighbors which in fact are on and the same. Two hop neighbors with more than one advertised address will exhibit this behavior. RFC5148 does not include the [] [RFC 4001] has a space in it Note: the description of the constructs in the nhdpStateObjGrp section is quite good. Needs to be updated with consistent terminology. In definition of nhdpDiscRouterIndex OBJECT-TYPE "The NHDP router ID (locally created) of a neighboring router." "The NHDP neighbor index (locally created) of a neighboring node." (key point is removal of ID) "discovered discovered" "discovered" Note: the descriptions of the AddrPrefixLen Objects is obtuse and should be cleaned up. Multiple sentences will help here. Indicates the number of leading one bits that form the mask to be logical-ANDed with the address used as the table index to determine the row match from this table and to determine the network address to which this interface is attached. Note in nhdpDiscNeighborNibNeighborSetUpTime you use single quotes around nbrup and nbrdown where before you used double in nhdpDiscNeighborNibNeighborSetReachableLinkChanges "That means that here is a change in the set of corresponding Link Tuples o= f that Neighbor Tuple=85" Replace with similar wording which was used in section 5.4 "A change in the set of Link Tuples corresponding to the appropriate Neighbor Tuple=85" Section 8 This is really the only section which has some correct usages of the word "router" and "routing" it also has some incorrect ones. NHDP nodes!=3Drout= er but routers can be NHDP nodes. --0015174c34dc97335904a8fa3ccf Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Below is my review of version 8 of the NHDP MIB document. = =A0This most recent version has addressed many of my=A0concerns and nearly = all of the comments this go around are related to cleaning up terminology w= hich was mucked up by the changes. =A0Great work guys.


Justin Dean


=

Section 5.3

s/in [RFC6130]/of [RFC6130]/


Two constructs, i.e., TEXTUAL CONVENTIONs, are defined in s= upport of the tables in the State Group.


Two constructs, i.e., TEXTUAL CONVENTIONs, are defined to s= upport the State Group tables.


You guys use=85.

"virtual neighbors and neighbor interfaces."=A0

then later use=A0

"address sets, virtual interfaces and virtual routers&= quot;

Suggest you use the same order and terminology (also slight= ly confused on where the "address sets" came from as the rest of = this section is talking about 2 constructs)


Section 5.4

"That means that there is a change in the set of corre= sponding Link Tuples of for that Neighbor Tuple=85."

"A change in the set of Link Tuples corresponding to t= he appropriate Neighbor Tuple=85"


"A 2-hop neighbor is said to become "nbrup" = when"

"A 2-hop neighbor becomes "nbrup" when"=


Section 7

"A locally arbitrary unique identifier associated with= a discovered NHDP neighbor virtual interface."

"An arbitrary, locally unique identifier associated wi= th a virtual interface of a discovered NHDP neighbor."


Cut the below as it isn't really important and only add= s confusion (all addresses of a 2 hop neighbor which are being advertised b= y NHDP will be discovered)

"Due to the nature of the NHDP protocol, it may not be= possible for the local router to determine all 2-hop neighbor addresses as= sociated with a single interface."


"Further, the local router may not know if two distinc= t address sets belong to the same interface on a 2-hop neighbor or to two d= ifferent interfaces."

"Due to the nature of the NHDP protocol, the local rou= ter may not know if two distinct addresses belong to the same interface of = a neighbor or to two different interfaces"


Note: you guys keep switching between "virtual neighbo= r interface" and "neighbor virtual interface" I suggest you = s/neighbor virtual interface/virtual neighbor interface/


"A locally arbitrary unique identifier associated with= an NHDP discovered virtual per router."

"An arbitrary, locally unique identifier associated wi= th a virtual router of a discovered NHDP neighbor (one or two hop)."


Note:same thing with mixing terminology of "virtual pe= er router"=A0 "virtual router" "virtual neighbor"= =A0 I suggest you use "virtual neighbor" as NHDP nodes are not al= ways routers.=A0 Also suggest replacement of all instance of router with ne= ighbor or node.


"Given the nature of the NHDP protocol, the local rout= er may have identified multiple virtual routers which in fact are one and t= he same."

Due to the nature of the NHDP protocol, the local router ma= y identify multiple virtual neighbors=A0 which in fact are on and the same.= =A0 Two hop neighbors with more than one advertised address will exhibit th= is behavior.


RFC5148 does not include the []


[RFC 4001] has a space in it


Note: the description of the constructs in the nhdpStateObj= Grp section is quite good.=A0 Needs to be updated with consistent terminolo= gy.


In definition of nhdpDiscRouterIndex OBJECT-TYPE

"The NHDP router ID (locally created) of a neighboring= router."

"The NHDP neighbor index (locally created) of a neighb= oring node." (key point is removal of ID)


"discovered discovered"

"discovered"


Note: the descriptions of the AddrPrefixLen Objects is obtu= se and should be cleaned up.=A0 Multiple sentences will help here.


Indicates the number of leading one bits that form the

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 mask to be logical-ANDed with the addre= ss

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 used as the table index to determine

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the row match from this table and

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 to determine the network address to whi= ch

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 this interface is attached.


Note in nhdpDiscNeighborNibNeighborSetUpTime you use single= quotes around nbrup and nbrdown where before you used double


in nhdpDiscNeighborNibNeighborSetReachableLinkChanges

"That means that here is a change in the set of corres= ponding Link Tuples of that Neighbor Tuple=85"

Replace with similar wording which was used in section 5.4<= /p>

"A change in the set of Link Tuples corresponding to t= he appropriate Neighbor Tuple=85"


Section 8

This is really the only section which has some correct usag= es of the word "router" and "routing" it also has some = incorrect ones.=A0 NHDP nodes!=3Drouter but routers can be NHDP nodes.

--0015174c34dc97335904a8fa3ccf-- From william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov Tue Jul 26 13:21:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BF021F85A3 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:21:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pTtsTwsqAzVA for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ndmsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov (ndmsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.0.123]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7ED21F859E for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ndjsppt04.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsppt04.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.103]) by ndmsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E2A181D4A; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:21:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ndjshub02.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjshub02-pub.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.161]) by ndjsppt04.ndc.nasa.gov (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QKLTgW032512; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:21:29 -0500 Received: from [130.129.17.68] (130.129.17.68) by smtp01.ndc.nasa.gov (198.117.1.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:21:29 -0500 From: "William D. Ivancic" To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:21:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1311711687.1677.140.camel@groundstation> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.4.6813, 1.0.211, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-07-26_06:2011-07-26, 2011-07-26, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 Cc: "manet@ietf.org" , sratliff@cisco.com Subject: [manet] dlep-01 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:21:31 -0000 A couple of comments and questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-dlep-01 Section 1.1 is entitled Requirements. I suggest that be Terminology or Required Language or something similar. As is, the title does not fit IMHO. Figure 1 doesn't appear to match this statement in the assumptions. "DLEP assumes that participating modem devices appear to the router as a transparent bridge - specifically, the assumption is that the destination MAC address for data traffic in any frame emitted by the router should be the MAC address of the next-hop router or end- device, and not the MAC address of any of the intervening modem devices." However, I think figure 1 is correct and the assumption is not a correct one. I think if I run a satellite modem such as a ViaSat Linkway modem or a EF-Data Comstream modem with an ethernet interface to the router, the MAC will be the MAC of the modem, not the downstream router. Am I missing something? From teco@inf-net.nl Tue Jul 26 13:59:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCFC21F867F for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:59:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jfa-cGV-2Ryw for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f53.google.com (mail-pz0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8384021F861E for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so1360710pzk.26 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.31.40 with SMTP id x8mr481906pbh.167.1311713993226; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8::16:226:bbff:fe1a:aad2? ([2001:df8:0:16:226:bbff:fe1a:aad2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i9sm919976pbk.52.2011.07.26.13.59.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: <1311711687.1677.140.camel@groundstation> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:59:49 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1311711687.1677.140.camel@groundstation> To: William D. Ivancic X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "manet@ietf.org" , sratliff@cisco.com Subject: Re: [manet] dlep-01 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:59:54 -0000 Figure 1 depicts a setup with 6 MAC addresses. User traffic is router to router, the assumption is that the MAC address = corresponding to the next-hop IP is the far-end router. 4 MAC addresses in the middle are for the two transparent bridges, with = MAC address on each interface. DLEP is between the router and local bridge. Could be IP also. Note that pure 802.11 in IBSS (ad hoc mode) has difficulties with = running in bridge mode. There are work-arounds. Teco. Op 26 jul 2011, om 22:21 heeft William D. Ivancic het volgende = geschreven: > A couple of comments and questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-dlep-01 >=20 > Section 1.1 is entitled Requirements. I suggest that be Terminology = or > Required Language or something similar. As is, the title does not fit > IMHO. >=20 > Figure 1 doesn't appear to match this statement in the assumptions. >=20 > "DLEP assumes that participating modem devices appear to the router > as a transparent bridge - specifically, the assumption is that the > destination MAC address for data traffic in any frame emitted by > the router should be the MAC address of the next-hop router or end- > device, and not the MAC address of any of the intervening modem > devices." >=20 > However, I think figure 1 is correct and the assumption is not a = correct one. =20 >=20 > I think if I run a satellite modem such as a ViaSat Linkway modem or a > EF-Data Comstream modem with an ethernet interface to the router, the > MAC will be the MAC of the modem, not the downstream router. >=20 > Am I missing something? >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From sratliff@cisco.com Tue Jul 26 17:22:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2042C21F8AF6 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:22:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w5yFsm6GCv6k for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845CC21F8AF5 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:22:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sratliff@cisco.com; l=2242; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311726166; x=1312935766; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date: references; bh=mxjnHULFGdMzKrCX9GkabkFA6+iJOzMTOJ5qkeOlv3o=; b=kdBOP0ZX4WEBEZeTQG7uy25+q9Z//aHEInaXEVSQcCDCpEqgvJ7veVry FjH0ruvPw9Uu79bdPVu2KqRea+/yEZnHZ46U+ytXXQFBflvXoeh7wjDAv /N6vk2wTRxcfQjMfT7wBW+f9W3TW0r7LEiDuiN9Ih+jASO/FJJMtvJ/Ub s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAItZL06tJXG9/2dsb2JhbAA1AQEBAQIBAQEBEQEpAjoLBQwMUhQYOQcXJ6cqd4h8BKNank6FYV8EknKQfA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,272,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="6716795" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jul 2011 00:22:46 +0000 Received: from rtp-sratliff-8718.cisco.com (rtp-sratliff-8718.cisco.com [10.116.179.217]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6R0Mjta021594; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:22:45 GMT Message-Id: <3B0AF91C-C1D7-440A-A8B4-5D93B9AAB266@cisco.com> From: Stan Ratliff To: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:22:43 -0400 References: <1311711687.1677.140.camel@groundstation> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] dlep-01 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:22:47 -0000 William/Teco - In the deployments we've tested in, the MAC address used is the one of the far-end router, instead of any of the intermediate devices (e.g. the satellite modems). I believe the sat modems act in bridging mode. I will say, however, I'm not experienced withe the EF-Data Comstream modem you mentioned. I'll look around and see what I can find on it. Regards, Stan On Jul 26, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Teco Boot wrote: > Figure 1 depicts a setup with 6 MAC addresses. > User traffic is router to router, the assumption is that the MAC > address corresponding to the next-hop IP is the far-end router. > 4 MAC addresses in the middle are for the two transparent bridges, > with MAC address on each interface. > DLEP is between the router and local bridge. Could be IP also. > > Note that pure 802.11 in IBSS (ad hoc mode) has difficulties with > running in bridge mode. There are work-arounds. > > Teco. > > Op 26 jul 2011, om 22:21 heeft William D. Ivancic het volgende > geschreven: > >> A couple of comments and questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-dlep-01 >> >> Section 1.1 is entitled Requirements. I suggest that be >> Terminology or >> Required Language or something similar. As is, the title does not >> fit >> IMHO. >> >> Figure 1 doesn't appear to match this statement in the assumptions. >> >> "DLEP assumes that participating modem devices appear to the router >> as a transparent bridge - specifically, the assumption is that the >> destination MAC address for data traffic in any frame emitted by >> the router should be the MAC address of the next-hop router or end- >> device, and not the MAC address of any of the intervening modem >> devices." >> >> However, I think figure 1 is correct and the assumption is not a >> correct one. >> >> I think if I run a satellite modem such as a ViaSat Linkway modem >> or a >> EF-Data Comstream modem with an ethernet interface to the router, the >> MAC will be the MAC of the modem, not the downstream router. >> >> Am I missing something? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > From teco@inf-net.nl Wed Jul 27 05:54:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3928121F858D for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:54:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0XuAeE-As3Zy for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEAF21F8588 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so1219653gwb.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.114.18 with SMTP id m18mr4607231wfc.403.1311771288663; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8::16:226:bbff:fe1a:aad2? ([2001:df8:0:16:226:bbff:fe1a:aad2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u6sm80216pbh.64.2011.07.27.05.54.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: <3B0AF91C-C1D7-440A-A8B4-5D93B9AAB266@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:54:42 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1311711687.1677.140.camel@groundstation> <3B0AF91C-C1D7-440A-A8B4-5D93B9AAB266@cisco.com> To: Stan Ratliff X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] dlep-01 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:54:51 -0000 I did see a satcom modem vender switching from bridging to=20 routing mode. This has a large impact on the network design.=20 Impact on DLEP would be low, or none. Teco Op 27 jul 2011, om 02:22 heeft Stan Ratliff het volgende geschreven: > William/Teco - >=20 > In the deployments we've tested in, the MAC address used is the one of = the far-end router, instead of any of the intermediate devices (e.g. the = satellite modems). I believe the sat modems act in bridging mode. I will = say, however, I'm not experienced withe the EF-Data Comstream modem you = mentioned. I'll look around and see what I can find on it. >=20 > Regards, > Stan >=20 > On Jul 26, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Teco Boot wrote: >=20 >> Figure 1 depicts a setup with 6 MAC addresses. >> User traffic is router to router, the assumption is that the MAC = address corresponding to the next-hop IP is the far-end router. >> 4 MAC addresses in the middle are for the two transparent bridges, = with MAC address on each interface. >> DLEP is between the router and local bridge. Could be IP also. >>=20 >> Note that pure 802.11 in IBSS (ad hoc mode) has difficulties with = running in bridge mode. There are work-arounds. >>=20 >> Teco. >>=20 >> Op 26 jul 2011, om 22:21 heeft William D. Ivancic het volgende = geschreven: >>=20 >>> A couple of comments and questions regarding = draft-ietf-manet-dlep-01 >>>=20 >>> Section 1.1 is entitled Requirements. I suggest that be Terminology = or >>> Required Language or something similar. As is, the title does not = fit >>> IMHO. >>>=20 >>> Figure 1 doesn't appear to match this statement in the assumptions. >>>=20 >>> "DLEP assumes that participating modem devices appear to the router >>> as a transparent bridge - specifically, the assumption is that the >>> destination MAC address for data traffic in any frame emitted by >>> the router should be the MAC address of the next-hop router or end- >>> device, and not the MAC address of any of the intervening modem >>> devices." >>>=20 >>> However, I think figure 1 is correct and the assumption is not a = correct one. >>>=20 >>> I think if I run a satellite modem such as a ViaSat Linkway modem or = a >>> EF-Data Comstream modem with an ethernet interface to the router, = the >>> MAC will be the MAC of the modem, not the downstream router. >>>=20 >>> Am I missing something? >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> manet mailing list >>> manet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>=20 >=20 From sratliff@cisco.com Wed Jul 27 07:30:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5212721F8559 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:30:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZWSbCnWCFASo for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D5321F8551 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:30:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sratliff@cisco.com; l=3575; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311777055; x=1312986655; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date: references; bh=NE5FdaejT+1nCVsnnllXKPGsYcpV/umH7YOLnmK/+lU=; b=m8oIaLtB6u8SdBz16yku6uXqIiqb7clWxqTqrnah+4V1ctmnM0lOuqSZ Z0T4weL1aU+TPaik4hs2UUC1qiRrbETJPuaPYUfKDBVQe+bVsHTa1c3rs 8tPqwWk1F54N136GmO6hj0o189Ky5iKInkAK4DFuEuHeULAUl9vRqWA+X 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAKEgME6tJV2d/2dsb2JhbAA1AQEBAQIBAQEBEQEpAjoLBQwMGDoUGDkHFyenGXeIfASjNJ5thWFfBJJ1kH4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,276,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="6993819" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jul 2011 14:30:55 +0000 Received: from dhcp-64-102-54-112.cisco.com (dhcp-64-102-54-112.cisco.com [64.102.54.112]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6REUsTn020074; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:30:54 GMT Message-Id: From: Stan Ratliff To: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:30:53 -0400 References: <1311711687.1677.140.camel@groundstation> <3B0AF91C-C1D7-440A-A8B4-5D93B9AAB266@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] dlep-01 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:30:56 -0000 Teco, If, for instance, the satcom modem is truly in a "routing mode" - e.g. it has an OSI layer 3 routing protocol - then yes, things change dramatically. In that environment, any router directly connected to the satcom modem would simply establish a Layer 3 routing adjacency with the modem. For example, both the satcom modem and any directly attached router would run OLSR, and would exchange HELLO messages, and establish an OLSR adjacency. It would then be up to the satcom modem to take its variable metrics via some mechanism (a DLEP implementation running completely within the confines of the modem, for example), and advertise the appropriate route cost back to the router. Regards, Stan On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Teco Boot wrote: > I did see a satcom modem vender switching from bridging to > routing mode. This has a large impact on the network design. > Impact on DLEP would be low, or none. > > Teco > > Op 27 jul 2011, om 02:22 heeft Stan Ratliff het volgende geschreven: > >> William/Teco - >> >> In the deployments we've tested in, the MAC address used is the one >> of the far-end router, instead of any of the intermediate devices >> (e.g. the satellite modems). I believe the sat modems act in >> bridging mode. I will say, however, I'm not experienced withe the >> EF-Data Comstream modem you mentioned. I'll look around and see >> what I can find on it. >> >> Regards, >> Stan >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Teco Boot wrote: >> >>> Figure 1 depicts a setup with 6 MAC addresses. >>> User traffic is router to router, the assumption is that the MAC >>> address corresponding to the next-hop IP is the far-end router. >>> 4 MAC addresses in the middle are for the two transparent bridges, >>> with MAC address on each interface. >>> DLEP is between the router and local bridge. Could be IP also. >>> >>> Note that pure 802.11 in IBSS (ad hoc mode) has difficulties with >>> running in bridge mode. There are work-arounds. >>> >>> Teco. >>> >>> Op 26 jul 2011, om 22:21 heeft William D. Ivancic het volgende >>> geschreven: >>> >>>> A couple of comments and questions regarding draft-ietf-manet- >>>> dlep-01 >>>> >>>> Section 1.1 is entitled Requirements. I suggest that be >>>> Terminology or >>>> Required Language or something similar. As is, the title does >>>> not fit >>>> IMHO. >>>> >>>> Figure 1 doesn't appear to match this statement in the assumptions. >>>> >>>> "DLEP assumes that participating modem devices appear to the router >>>> as a transparent bridge - specifically, the assumption is that the >>>> destination MAC address for data traffic in any frame emitted by >>>> the router should be the MAC address of the next-hop router or end- >>>> device, and not the MAC address of any of the intervening modem >>>> devices." >>>> >>>> However, I think figure 1 is correct and the assumption is not a >>>> correct one. >>>> >>>> I think if I run a satellite modem such as a ViaSat Linkway modem >>>> or a >>>> EF-Data Comstream modem with an ethernet interface to the router, >>>> the >>>> MAC will be the MAC of the modem, not the downstream router. >>>> >>>> Am I missing something? >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> manet mailing list >>>> manet@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From teco@inf-net.nl Wed Jul 27 08:17:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F30621F8A4D for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:17:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y8Ye53ZaIOAV for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544C621F8A23 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so1150576qwc.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.238.8 with SMTP id l8mr86180wfh.330.1311779825253; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8::16:226:bbff:fe1a:aad2? ([2001:df8:0:16:226:bbff:fe1a:aad2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d3sm187512pbh.69.2011.07.27.08.17.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:17:01 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1311711687.1677.140.camel@groundstation> <3B0AF91C-C1D7-440A-A8B4-5D93B9AAB266@cisco.com> To: Stan Ratliff X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] dlep-01 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:17:07 -0000 Running a routing protocol and form adjacency is one option. Using the satcom terminal as gateway is another, more common approach. Other options may exist. DLEP can be used to set a metric on the default gateway route,=20 or on a tunnel over this satcom link.=20 Teco Op 27 jul 2011, om 16:30 heeft Stan Ratliff het volgende geschreven: > Teco, >=20 > If, for instance, the satcom modem is truly in a "routing mode" - e.g. = it has an OSI layer 3 routing protocol - then yes, things change = dramatically. In that environment, any router directly connected to the = satcom modem would simply establish a Layer 3 routing adjacency with the = modem. For example, both the satcom modem and any directly attached = router would run OLSR, and would exchange HELLO messages, and establish = an OLSR adjacency. It would then be up to the satcom modem to take its = variable metrics via some mechanism (a DLEP implementation running = completely within the confines of the modem, for example), and advertise = the appropriate route cost back to the router. >=20 > Regards, > Stan >=20 > On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Teco Boot wrote: >=20 >> I did see a satcom modem vender switching from bridging to >> routing mode. This has a large impact on the network design. >> Impact on DLEP would be low, or none. >>=20 >> Teco >>=20 >> Op 27 jul 2011, om 02:22 heeft Stan Ratliff het volgende geschreven: >>=20 >>> William/Teco - >>>=20 >>> In the deployments we've tested in, the MAC address used is the one = of the far-end router, instead of any of the intermediate devices (e.g. = the satellite modems). I believe the sat modems act in bridging mode. I = will say, however, I'm not experienced withe the EF-Data Comstream modem = you mentioned. I'll look around and see what I can find on it. >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> Stan >>>=20 >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Teco Boot wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Figure 1 depicts a setup with 6 MAC addresses. >>>> User traffic is router to router, the assumption is that the MAC = address corresponding to the next-hop IP is the far-end router. >>>> 4 MAC addresses in the middle are for the two transparent bridges, = with MAC address on each interface. >>>> DLEP is between the router and local bridge. Could be IP also. >>>>=20 >>>> Note that pure 802.11 in IBSS (ad hoc mode) has difficulties with = running in bridge mode. There are work-arounds. >>>>=20 >>>> Teco. >>>>=20 >>>> Op 26 jul 2011, om 22:21 heeft William D. Ivancic het volgende = geschreven: >>>>=20 >>>>> A couple of comments and questions regarding = draft-ietf-manet-dlep-01 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Section 1.1 is entitled Requirements. I suggest that be = Terminology or >>>>> Required Language or something similar. As is, the title does not = fit >>>>> IMHO. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Figure 1 doesn't appear to match this statement in the = assumptions. >>>>>=20 >>>>> "DLEP assumes that participating modem devices appear to the = router >>>>> as a transparent bridge - specifically, the assumption is that the >>>>> destination MAC address for data traffic in any frame emitted by >>>>> the router should be the MAC address of the next-hop router or = end- >>>>> device, and not the MAC address of any of the intervening modem >>>>> devices." >>>>>=20 >>>>> However, I think figure 1 is correct and the assumption is not a = correct one. >>>>>=20 >>>>> I think if I run a satellite modem such as a ViaSat Linkway modem = or a >>>>> EF-Data Comstream modem with an ethernet interface to the router, = the >>>>> MAC will be the MAC of the modem, not the downstream router. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Am I missing something? >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> manet mailing list >>>>> manet@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 From Martin.Duke@boeing.com Wed Jul 27 08:22:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCDC21F8AE4 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:22:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HBBwaB2-W0-i for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE20621F8AED for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p6RFMb12019185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p6RFMaa1025637; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-07.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.111]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p6RFMaAV025632 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NW-11V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.84]) by XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.111]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:22:36 -0700 From: "Duke, Martin" To: Stan Ratliff , MANET IETF Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:22:35 -0700 Thread-Topic: [manet] DLEP Version 01 Thread-Index: AcwI4e+km6LgoKmnRFGVGMzvrtmTxxDjlutA Message-ID: References: <152AD12F-9868-4202-B7B8-2604B692A445@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <152AD12F-9868-4202-B7B8-2604B692A445@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP Version 01 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:22:45 -0000 Stan, Is there any prohibition on reporting a Current Data Rate of zero? I think this might be useful for a case I brought up several months ago, wh= ere a radio has the capability of forming a link with any from a large set = of neighbors, but only a few at a time. For instance, a Free Space Optical = (FSO) radio might have a dozen possible neighbors, but can only service one= at a time with long switching times between them. It might report a zero C= DR and a high MDR to all 12 neighbors; if the router wants to communicate w= ith one of them, it can request additional data rate, and in a matter of se= conds the radio can respond. If this is a use case that people support, it might be wise to spell it out= in the spec, because reporting a zero CDR is non-obvious behavior for this= situation. This is a good draft and I'm eager to see it proceed. Martin > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf Of Stan Ratliff > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 8:58 AM > To: MANET IETF > Subject: [manet] DLEP Version 01 >=20 > All, >=20 > I have just posted an 01 version of the DLEP draft. First=20 > off, my apologies for this taking longer than I thought. The=20 > pressures of work... ;-) >=20 > A synopsis of the version 01 DLEP changes: >=20 > 1. We've gotten rid of the requirement for a 5444 packet TLV;=20 > everything is now placed into > 5444 Message TLVs. >=20 > 2. We've tried to clarify that DLEP messages exist as an=20 > "order" (e.g. =20 > NEIGHBOR_UP), and a > collection of Sub-TLVs that convey information about the order. >=20 > 3. There is now only 1 allocation required from the 5444=20 > message TLV: =20 > DLEP_MESSAGE. > Other DLEP orders and sub-TLVs exist in their own registries. >=20 > 3. We have added some timer sub-TLVs; this was in response to=20 > comments by Tom Henderson in Prague concerning different=20 > setup times for different modem devices. >=20 > Regards, > Stan > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > = From thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com Wed Jul 27 14:38:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D4421F8BEA for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.259 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.259 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.074, BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OV1bKUsKLmV1 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C68B21F8426 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p6RLbuPV026779 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p6RLbtkN012103 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NWHT-03.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-03.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.71.23]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p6RLbnZG011883 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.83]) by XCH-NWHT-03.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.71.23]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:50 -0700 From: "Henderson, Thomas R" To: MANET IETF Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:37:49 -0700 Thread-Topic: PIM and SMF interworking Thread-Index: AcxMpW7EztsIJMXlTiuAIYehVd8fCg== Message-ID: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEFAF04AF@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [manet] PIM and SMF interworking X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:38:28 -0000 Yesterday there was a question late in the meeting about whether there was = any previous work on PIM and SMF interoperability. The following two paper= s discuss some work on this topic. Chakeres, Ian D.; Danilov, Claudiu; Henderson, Thomas R.; Macker, Joseph P.= ; , "Connecting MANET Multicast," Military Communications Conference, 2007.= MILCOM 2007. IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-7, 29-31 Oct. 2007 Danilov, C.; Henderson, T.R.; Spagnolo, P.A.; Goff, T.; Kim, J.H.; , "MANET= multicast with multiple gateways," Military Communications Conference, 200= 8. MILCOM 2008. IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-8, 16-19 Nov. 2008 From Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl Wed Jul 27 15:12:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74F711E80C3 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:12:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IojEtzKnwJli for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailouta.tno.nl (mailouta.tno.nl [134.221.1.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D1511E8097 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,278,1309730400"; d="scan'208";a="55478919" Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tno.nl) ([134.221.225.222]) by mailhost1a.tno.nl with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2011 00:12:29 +0200 Received: from EXC-MBX02.tsn.tno.nl ([169.254.2.196]) by EXC-CASHUB03.tsn.tno.nl ([134.221.225.222]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:12:29 +0200 From: "Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" To: "'Henderson, Thomas R'" , MANET IETF Thread-Topic: PIM and SMF interworking Thread-Index: AcxMpW7EztsIJMXlTiuAIYehVd8fCgAAQksw Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:12:29 +0000 Message-ID: <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F3031E56895@EXC-MBX02.tsn.tno.nl> References: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEFAF04AF@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEFAF04AF@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> Accept-Language: en-US, nl-NL Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [134.221.225.191] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [manet] PIM and SMF interworking X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:12:36 -0000 Thomas, -----Original Message----- From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of H= enderson, Thomas R Sent: woensdag 27 juli 2011 23:38 To: MANET IETF Subject: [manet] PIM and SMF interworking Yesterday there was a question late in the meeting about whether there was = any previous work on PIM and SMF interoperability. The following two paper= s discuss some work on this topic. Chakeres, Ian D.; Danilov, Claudiu; Henderson, Thomas R.; Macker, Joseph P.= ; , "Connecting MANET Multicast," Military Communications Conference, 2007.= MILCOM 2007. IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-7, 29-31 Oct. 2007 Danilov, C.; Henderson, T.R.; Spagnolo, P.A.; Goff, T.; Kim, J.H.; , "MANET= multicast with multiple gateways," Military Communications Conference, 200= 8. MILCOM 2008. IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-8, 16-19 Nov. 2008=20 ------- Thanks for the pointers! It was me asking that question. This was in the co= ntext of a discussion on potential future work in the MANET WG. I was bring= ing up multicast interworking as a topic that might be of interest to the g= roup. I haven't yet read the papers referenced above, but if this is alread= y a solved problem, then obviously it is not something worth spending more = time on.=20 Regards, Ronald in 't Velt=20 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tn= o.nl/emaildisclaimer From joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil Wed Jul 27 15:32:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83DFE11E80C8 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:32:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iwFe13X6B60Z for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C353311E80F5 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id p6RMWDHT019571; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:32:17 -0400 Received: from vpn217206.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.217.206]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id M2011072718321712970 ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:32:17 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joe Macker In-Reply-To: <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F3031E56895@EXC-MBX02.tsn.tno.nl> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:30:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEFAF04AF@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F3031E56895@EXC-MBX02.tsn.tno.nl> To: "Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "'Henderson, Thomas R'" , MANET IETF Subject: Re: [manet] PIM and SMF interworking X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:32:30 -0000 Ronald: I think remains room to specify and document approaches within the IETF. = These can serve as references. On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't wrote: > Thomas, >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Henderson, Thomas R > Sent: woensdag 27 juli 2011 23:38 > To: MANET IETF > Subject: [manet] PIM and SMF interworking >=20 > Yesterday there was a question late in the meeting about whether there = was any previous work on PIM and SMF interoperability. The following = two papers discuss some work on this topic. >=20 > Chakeres, Ian D.; Danilov, Claudiu; Henderson, Thomas R.; Macker, = Joseph P.; , "Connecting MANET Multicast," Military Communications = Conference, 2007. MILCOM 2007. IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-7, 29-31 Oct. 2007 >=20 > Danilov, C.; Henderson, T.R.; Spagnolo, P.A.; Goff, T.; Kim, J.H.; , = "MANET multicast with multiple gateways," Military Communications = Conference, 2008. MILCOM 2008. IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-8, 16-19 Nov. 2008=20= >=20 > ------- >=20 > Thanks for the pointers! It was me asking that question. This was in = the context of a discussion on potential future work in the MANET WG. I = was bringing up multicast interworking as a topic that might be of = interest to the group. I haven't yet read the papers referenced above, = but if this is already a solved problem, then obviously it is not = something worth spending more time on.=20 >=20 > Regards, > Ronald in 't Velt=20 > _______________________________________________ >=20 > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at = http://www.tno.nl/emaildisclaimer >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 From joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil Wed Jul 27 15:32:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F4311E80F5 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:32:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0bXbpJ98BfvE for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31F811E80EF for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id p6RMWDHR019571; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:32:17 -0400 Received: from vpn217206.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.217.206]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id M2011072718321712969 ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:32:17 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joe Macker In-Reply-To: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEFAF04AF@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:29:05 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <196773F4-32D8-4181-AD57-C442A55B206F@nrl.navy.mil> References: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEFAF04AF@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> To: "Henderson, Thomas R" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: MANET IETF Subject: Re: [manet] PIM and SMF interworking X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:32:30 -0000 thanks it is mentioned in the minutes and this provides a nice reference On Jul 27, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote: > Yesterday there was a question late in the meeting about whether there = was any previous work on PIM and SMF interoperability. The following = two papers discuss some work on this topic. >=20 > Chakeres, Ian D.; Danilov, Claudiu; Henderson, Thomas R.; Macker, = Joseph P.; , "Connecting MANET Multicast," Military Communications = Conference, 2007. MILCOM 2007. IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-7, 29-31 Oct. 2007 >=20 > Danilov, C.; Henderson, T.R.; Spagnolo, P.A.; Goff, T.; Kim, J.H.; , = "MANET multicast with multiple gateways," Military Communications = Conference, 2008. MILCOM 2008. IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-8, 16-19 Nov. 2008 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 From jpmacker@gmail.com Thu Jul 28 15:21:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EEBD5E8007 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:21:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uGydYiyHKT9J for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371C05E800E for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so1992025wwe.13 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:21:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=VZI1bWtbUFsAIVRKTcom2eDPhrkkYORkQfUpBjMDZgQ=; b=TykumsAh92DJhfZKQbt9Wm7Iw0GcbV8ZUj11QlFcw/QLEyuU+idcTqTa/sCqdpD0Tt 7gtGFzXboHj0LpK7zIUJ50crq+V6RU5mMzfa4Yly5QIeDIllDvhDjkhuPna2wV5l1FI8 cqBrORqTRZdXdkRbGZ2ol3JXN17bAv9CaVQPk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.142.78 with SMTP id p14mr701970wbu.58.1311891716111; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.187.139 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:21:56 -0400 Message-ID: From: Joseph Macker To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [manet] PAWS and radio-to-router interfacing X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:21:58 -0000 Since PAWS is a new working group on efficient spectrum access issues, it was mentioned by the AD (Stewart) at the Routing Open Area that this should be made aware to the manet list as we proceed and discuss radio-router interface issues. Not so sure how far along PAWS but certainly a spectrum management approach could be part of a more generic radio/router interface design. -Joe From teco@inf-net.nl Thu Jul 28 15:47:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC9F11E80A1 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:47:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jQBY9eDYuCuM for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E99211E8082 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so3423767qyk.10 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.73.196 with SMTP id r4mr476647qcj.266.1311893234315; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8::16:226:bbff:fe1a:aad2? ([2001:df8:0:16:226:bbff:fe1a:aad2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s14sm1006776qct.30.2011.07.28.15.47.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:47:11 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: To: Joseph Macker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] PAWS and radio-to-router interfacing X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:47:16 -0000 Thanks mentioning this. I asked for an ad hoc network use case already and provided text to authors. Why would PAWS be related to routing? Isn't this a lower layer thing? Teco Op 29 jul 2011, om 00:21 heeft Joseph Macker het volgende geschreven: > Since PAWS is a new working group on efficient spectrum access issues, > it was mentioned by the AD (Stewart) at the Routing Open Area that > this should be made aware to the manet list as we proceed and discuss > radio-router interface issues. > > Not so sure how far along PAWS but certainly a spectrum management > approach could be part of a more generic radio/router interface > design. > > -Joe > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jul 28 16:00:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF74C11E811E; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:00:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ft6NcJeA7sUg; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C26B11E8097; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:00:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.57 Message-ID: <20110728230000.9842.95781.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:00:00 -0700 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-09.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:00:01 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Disco= very Protocol Author(s) : Ulrich Herberg Robert G. Cole Ian D Chakeres Filename : draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-09.txt Pages : 67 Date : 2011-07-28 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects for configuring parameters of the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) process on a router. The MIB defined in this memo, denoted NHDP-MIB, also reports state, performance information and notifications. This additional state and performance information is useful to troubleshoot problems and performance issues during neighbor discovery. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-09.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-09.txt From jpmacker@gmail.com Thu Jul 28 20:30:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A378021F8680 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:30:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_63=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3XbWlkAGMIs2 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6703F21F867A for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so238891wyj.31 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:30:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d/4sAQlLb3wsvF58PnKSqGDFOtGdD8GLJ6lyZ9WOJ2k=; b=a7SB3oDHOoe6qL/G+UhOizGQFE9LmxzmgOahAbRGEf6kcs9B/XlNURGIFPpindQq+o QZcQQS9lbpHqZ2rZIBbVFpagY/UD8ccepw/zqeKOOTjEdsZv4x4nDojuwrHbG/DIzVJC Z+dU15GM26KcvMpbZtltzMoiKNDz4Bldt9WBY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.195.209 with SMTP id ed17mr1091545wbb.13.1311910253130; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.187.139 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:30:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:30:53 -0500 Message-ID: From: Joseph Macker To: Teco Boot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] PAWS and radio-to-router interfacing X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:30:55 -0000 I am not an expert on PAWS in particular, but cognitive radios or dynamic allocations or deallocations would interact with events,etc that are potentially radio-router interface relevant (Qos, Bandwidth, delay,etc). I think the point was its another IETF activity to be aware of and potentially interact with where sensible.. -Joe On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Teco Boot wrote: > Thanks mentioning this. I asked for an ad hoc network use case > already and provided text to authors. > > Why would PAWS be related to routing? Isn't this a lower layer thing? > > Teco > > Op 29 jul 2011, om 00:21 heeft Joseph Macker het volgende geschreven: > >> Since PAWS is a new working group on efficient spectrum access issues, >> it was mentioned by the AD (Stewart) =A0at the Routing Open Area that >> this should be made aware to the manet list as we proceed and discuss >> radio-router interface issues. >> >> Not so sure how far along PAWS but certainly a spectrum management >> approach could be part of a more generic radio/router interface >> design. >> >> -Joe >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > From stbryant@cisco.com Fri Jul 29 03:50:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6829D21F8736 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:50:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ykZDMw+M00aB for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D51D21F86C4 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:50:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; l=1608; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311936632; x=1313146232; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VDEF+iwfXnQAOgw0bMZ4YQYL2XtSYInFv0oqH9seryo=; b=NyN1CiO/at2XoacqXKFS/8NLR9foPkqeKiBLJys3rryH0UAp8Z54H/s+ Q/9FjEjbYigzErRBYjq/mjO9HrfsUtD3Kf7ijxv/kBX7C7hF4U8K79RqF K2gOen+8pTuW5j1jabUCq5IKX5naWtzaFstkAnXHCtcRSXisiFyt1t24q M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqcHAESQMk6Q/khM/2dsb2JhbAA0AQEBAQMBAQERAQQBJDwKEgwYCSIPCQMCAQIBAhg5FQkGAQEfmDGPE3eJAKEdgxYPAZshhkEEknqQZA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,287,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="105583025" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2011 10:50:22 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6TAoJa0032062 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:50:22 GMT Received: from dhcp-40ba.meeting.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id p6TAoHMQ005591; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:50:18 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4E32906A.7060202@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:50:18 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [manet] PAWS and radio-to-router interfacing X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:50:33 -0000 My primary concern here was to make the WG aware of this activity. I can see MANET systems being deployed on white space spectrum. I am not sure whether there is an overlap, but better to confirm none than have one IETF WG do something in conflict with the needs of another IETF WG. One area that might impact routing is the need to minimize disruption when a set of channel leases expire which may happen on a time or distance based schedule. Stewart On 28/07/2011 23:47, Teco Boot wrote: > Thanks mentioning this. I asked for an ad hoc network use case > already and provided text to authors. > > Why would PAWS be related to routing? Isn't this a lower layer thing? > > Teco > > Op 29 jul 2011, om 00:21 heeft Joseph Macker het volgende geschreven: > >> Since PAWS is a new working group on efficient spectrum access issues, >> it was mentioned by the AD (Stewart) at the Routing Open Area that >> this should be made aware to the manet list as we proceed and discuss >> radio-router interface issues. >> >> Not so sure how far along PAWS but certainly a spectrum management >> approach could be part of a more generic radio/router interface >> design. >> >> -Joe >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html From sratliff@cisco.com Fri Jul 29 06:10:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B14221F8BC9 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:10:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hFkI8j9aQSfp for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0179421F8BC7 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:10:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sratliff@cisco.com; l=1965; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311945011; x=1313154611; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date: references; bh=+EOE1DSscbLcWzDsCWw0KP24EtzuOwPKShKio5FcKfE=; b=Lat/yLq5Vl96j88c+SEOUh/3jSRs627C9atNtm+cH0eT4amQpSL6hnGQ ScGuEkLGkJAzaSbGovB83qHEvC+6Zjpkc9FzHChOixux5vKbw1HjS/6HL AFd8JQntzRjC2E1CN7NJ6CByJ+DCwQJwhtTwtHQrc6YR3nqGC1C36ReW/ g=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,287,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="7772166" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2011 13:09:54 +0000 Received: from dhcp-64-102-194-102.cisco.com (dhcp-64-102-194-102.cisco.com [64.102.194.102]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6TD9sXE004329; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:09:54 GMT Message-Id: <46EC9B23-C2CA-4E9C-ADCA-83ED4DFC2B3E@cisco.com> From: Stan Ratliff To: stbryant@cisco.com In-Reply-To: <4E32906A.7060202@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:09:57 -0400 References: <4E32906A.7060202@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] PAWS and radio-to-router interfacing X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:10:11 -0000 Agreed, there needs to be a sync-up. I'll reach out to them. Regards, Stan On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > My primary concern here was to make the WG aware > of this activity. I can see MANET systems being deployed > on white space spectrum. > > I am not sure whether there is an overlap, but better > to confirm none than have one IETF WG do something > in conflict with the needs of another IETF WG. > > One area that might impact routing is the need to > minimize disruption when a set of channel leases expire > which may happen on a time or distance based schedule. > > Stewart > > On 28/07/2011 23:47, Teco Boot wrote: >> Thanks mentioning this. I asked for an ad hoc network use case >> already and provided text to authors. >> >> Why would PAWS be related to routing? Isn't this a lower layer thing? >> >> Teco >> >> Op 29 jul 2011, om 00:21 heeft Joseph Macker het volgende geschreven: >> >>> Since PAWS is a new working group on efficient spectrum access >>> issues, >>> it was mentioned by the AD (Stewart) at the Routing Open Area that >>> this should be made aware to the manet list as we proceed and >>> discuss >>> radio-router interface issues. >>> >>> Not so sure how far along PAWS but certainly a spectrum management >>> approach could be part of a more generic radio/router interface >>> design. >>> >>> -Joe >>> _______________________________________________ >>> manet mailing list >>> manet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> > > > -- > For corporate legal information go to: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From aaron@lo-res.org Fri Jul 29 08:55:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2E521F8ABE for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:55:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBa75ygqkvUO for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mute.lo-res.org (mail.lo-res.org [IPv6:2a02:60:1:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 593A521F8AC9 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.71.8.16] (vpn.lo-res.org [193.238.157.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mute.lo-res.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1824E9BC401; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:55:17 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Apple-Mail-179-787749105" From: "L. Aaron Kaplan" In-Reply-To: <4E32906A.7060202@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:55:13 +0600 Message-Id: <06DE1478-BF33-4856-86EE-FFE0B95BC8FF@lo-res.org> References: <4E32906A.7060202@cisco.com> To: stbryant@cisco.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.3.2 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] PAWS and radio-to-router interfacing X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:55:22 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --Apple-Mail-179-787749105 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-178-787749085; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 --Apple-Mail-178-787749085 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jul 29, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > My primary concern here was to make the WG aware > of this activity. I can see MANET systems being deployed > on white space spectrum. +1 and I would really like such an idea ;-) --Apple-Mail-178-787749085 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFNDCCBTAw ggMYoAMCAQICAwgPfDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQL ExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3Jp dHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAeFw0xMDAxMTUyMTIwMzBaFw0x MjAxMTUyMTIwMzBaMD0xGjAYBgNVBAMTEUxlb24gQWFyb24gS2FwbGFuMR8wHQYJKoZIhvcNAQkB FhBhYXJvbkBsby1yZXMub3JnMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEApQvPeHj6 sGm/AsPjAvb2m1Vk9cENgUlVQY1LRssnkzVZxN9eLelctS8EXha3eykXtV6Osn8pB5SWNHH6Mu6y +dJzYEpTd57KXrE5qn1VviWUcCu4L8ET+LoCMI084NbIxCE9++4Nah0XjXMXeB3efWbTfBN9nwyy DzpQWJGJRE1YwTdDQQ/JiYOhfilUACNKwgct+7o/nXRRYjnKX21ILHX+PaER/6dWlq96W4wYUGjj x4hPa4rai/HL7NsfAHWR3E0e+Nse3TEuWdnBOVjU/Ge3+fPfc5LpMIEUYlyjXJks3ttDq01m40+Q UGjLEXlr9vrEXE/gUftiQk4npnAoLwIDAQABo4H8MIH5MAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwVgYJYIZIAYb4 QgENBEkWR1RvIGdldCB5b3VyIG93biBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBmb3IgRlJFRSBoZWFkIG92ZXIgdG8g aHR0cDovL3d3dy5DQWNlcnQub3JnMEAGA1UdJQQ5MDcGCCsGAQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDAgYKKwYB BAGCNwoDBAYKKwYBBAGCNwoDAwYJYIZIAYb4QgQBMDIGCCsGAQUFBwEBBCYwJDAiBggrBgEFBQcw AYYWaHR0cDovL29jc3AuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAbBgNVHREEFDASgRBhYXJvbkBsby1yZXMub3JnMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4ICAQBdWKAWiGWIqs5FLYeSAEBpVFFggFDgz3bIry1Sz+6NxCdTJjPHw45j Z34Ks0s6YgRB0Qxqq/RZLfn8z2R3EjQcIgfJBQsHICnvNre46GV8A0eDUsTUA3VJKZSVowlubfWV 9kCFInh9QFRDR4ujjm0eiIcZQb4DG4D+X47vtNtdrpY67cjoH5wtFZKhwioKci+usnxGThpkPUHg PsDGNreyUs+pVE2oBl4dNmoztJargCeCAXRtnSGBIrIUskE9tgAs0tH1b91b6yDZtfOBy5xzJUfn tEETuG7v7dWguqEXlWnc8UdCFnalydlBu0zwwrhj/hfyibtKBv5kJzZJSMCGja+pS1bvSzb6kEoa nQD2ihZ11PkAfs1PKMk7W6QzRM9ZNaLYCSuZIA3r0CrARcL5nfve165URL1dOAIjb7YzPdVxzzne G0LiGC+EdOzvlRLb1q5lHDmc1qTgiojfwCOc75+BgkDIh8Havc2jmi7Q05wKJDMLD4ih3llT+HS1 N7tFR4MOai+UlpATJOvZtR32stExjO34c5MeCatZ1UmVmO2TmcHbTKaeZ/iATIYQRsm6cAHKhO7H FeYHO3lWczG/OmctbXxJ+HZL2p1HQEw+04AqmSNMXke5RqekgWMU+g9fOFOaBklWA20ysiGUVt2y IecTqyyW+2rKNR82t2qM3TGCAzMwggMvAgEBMIGAMHkxEDAOBgNVBAoTB1Jvb3QgQ0ExHjAcBgNV BAsTFWh0dHA6Ly93d3cuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzEiMCAGA1UEAxMZQ0EgQ2VydCBTaWduaW5nIEF1dGhv cml0eTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3VwcG9ydEBjYWNlcnQub3JnAgMID3wwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCC AYcwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTEwNzI5MTU1NTE0 WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUl+5YgFYYsKk0d07GzYI+pHvQnoQwgZEGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDGBgzCB gDB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAg BgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRA Y2FjZXJ0Lm9yZwIDCA98MIGTBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGBg6CBgDB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENB MR4wHAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmlu ZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZwIDCA98MA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBAQUABIIBADrnUjr/aVZsnlbbc5vdgfA/ufqqNMkyjNQquMkp2lypxA8XfMuag9dbtvad uS2UvR4T+8YPGLTUEk05kSKxGZakAT1YaGSqRV6AgmmZh57Joda7rUMfeNYBK4WKBpEkfYod2fvi L6Wpw+BdV5B2EA0JM6rgBRQZaLNjbfJmzsAD2e6mgH9FPvZ+bCdf3jYxt02Yg2BtR05RI7E+oFG8 wPnp65c6Z63oplDrbto2L/5EH4MhXAdAFiSOv+vxs3mNch3Opffk6fT237JsobqzAYU57AQVzjcg nFozXIA3DIGx+ANQNl/u57Y0RyFZ1Z8n3xBt+NaZqlZ20EeMcMPy0HcAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-178-787749085-- --Apple-Mail-179-787749105 content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig content-description: This is a digitally signed message part content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig content-transfer-encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAk4y1+IACgkQxEgyMttZ8Yw4RwCfXQfUJHWRhgBv8t0+98vUjoek jLIAoJ6OMgy/IFZiiwe12dMlMPLW4kii =gDyy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail-179-787749105-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jul 29 15:12:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BBD521F8B8F; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:12:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rTdBPST6Ajvc; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CB521F8B53; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:12:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.57 Message-ID: <20110729221242.6264.58650.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:12:42 -0700 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-05.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:12:45 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group = of the IETF. Title : MANET Cryptographical Signature TLV Definition Author(s) : Ulrich Herberg Thomas Heide Clausen Filename : draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-05.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2011-07-29 This document describes general and flexible TLVs (type-length-value structure) for representing cryptographic signatures as well as timestamps, using the generalized MANET packet/message format [RFC5444]. It defines two Packet TLVs, two Message TLVs, and two Address Block TLVs, for affixing cryptographic signatures and timestamps to a packet, message and address, respectively. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-05.txt From ulrich@herberg.name Fri Jul 29 15:29:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EA9511E80C6 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:29:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ChgNeHA7-quG for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF1911E8095 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so3827894vxi.31 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:29:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=gqkVGhImSSxkl0ByPtYMzXBnSRwdpXva/XqtbAkqOsM=; b=RrbU90VWy26Ri1ISwIwaLhnUoIkNcO6kBdtRIbhKUDAvQx7lgAjLfROKBSr2/5NkkV w63Iv6EQzDVIKTl1s9M1opbmRbvuoHiJKJWYhfxNWs7FfToMPzKF+J9G2HrJ711w6oU9 y0iK01GDPBj2WQTBHagaGHP9XK1LGtoWJdRx8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.72.97 with SMTP id c1mr1947017vdv.101.1311978586860; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.2.15 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:29:46 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f314c9f6cae04a93cd14c Subject: [manet] Minutes online X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:29:50 -0000 --20cf307f314c9f6cae04a93cd14c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I have uploaded the minutes of the MANET WG meeting. They are available at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/manet.txt Regards Ulrich --20cf307f314c9f6cae04a93cd14c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi,

I have uploaded the minutes of the MANET WG meeting. They are available at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/manet.txt


Regards
Ulrich
--20cf307f314c9f6cae04a93cd14c--