From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Wed Oct 2 06:22:53 2013 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 6F04A21F8CB4; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 06:22:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8hv9ehQM2XVK; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 06:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD8C21E804B; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 06:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.72.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20131002132239.20697.62548.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 06:22:39 -0700 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Last Call: (Definition of Managed Objects for the Manet Simplified Multicast Framework Relay Set Process) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:22:53 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Definition of Managed Objects for the Manet Simplified Multicast Framework Relay Set Process' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-10-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract 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 aspects of the Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF) process for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs). The SMF-MIB also reports state information, performance metrics, and notifications. In addition to configuration, the additional state and performance information is useful to operators troubleshooting multicast forwarding problems. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From dromasca@avaya.com Wed Oct 2 11:03:31 2013 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 E6DE021F94FA; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:03:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.813 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.813 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xqgsn8yo8jJP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A64321F9634; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:02:15 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoJRADJfTFLGmAcV/2dsb2JhbABZgmYhgQqsXI06hwyBGBZ0giUBAQEBAgESKC0SBQ0BFRUUQiYBBAENDRqHXgYBoFGceI19FoENMYMmgQQDlCSKOYsjgySBaUE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1020,1371096000"; d="scan'208";a="30876447" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2013 14:02:12 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2013 13:58:38 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.11]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:02:06 +0200 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "manet@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib.all@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 Thread-Index: Ac6/mYDFH4Wm1QNzRsOx9OMNSa5QXg== Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:02:05 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128EF9C2@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:28:53 -0700 Cc: "MIB Doctors \(E-mail\)" Subject: [manet] 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 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, 02 Oct 2013 18:03:31 -0000 Please find below the 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08.=20 1. Running smilint results in the following level 5 warnings:=20 mibs/SMF-MIB:396: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType'= should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:421: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' = object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:785: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType'= should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:806: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' = object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:824: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' = object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:1112: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType= ' should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:1126: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress'= object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:1140: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress'= object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:1215: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType= ' should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:1226: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress'= object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object Concerning the first category of warnings ' InetAddressType' should not be = subtyped ': indeed, as per RFC 4001:=20 > To support future extensions, the InetAddressType textual convention SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in object type definitions. It MAY be sub-typed in compliance statements in order to require only a subset of these address types for a compliant implementation. =20 I recommend giving up subtyping in the MIB and miving it to the compliance = statements for the respective objects.=20 Concerning the second category of warnings ' `InetAddress' object should ha= ve an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object ': Actually such object= s exist but they are defined for a pair of IP addresses for the two ends of= a range. The warnings can be ignored, but I recommend to clarify in the DE= SCRIPTION clauses of each object with an InetAddress SYNTAX what is the rel= evant object with the InetAddressType SYNTAX.=20 2. In the abstract:=20 > The SMF-MIB also reports state information, performance metrics, and notifications. =20 It is actually the performance information that is being reported - I sugge= st to change the wording.=20 3. In Section 4.1:=20 > Figure 1 (reproduced from Figure 4 of [RFC6621]) shows ... Actually Figure 1 here is reproduced from Figure 1 (and not 4) of [RFC6621] 4. When copying Figure 1 the asterisks in the RFC6621 figure were also copi= ed. They are not relevant (I think) and not explained here - I suggest to d= elete them.=20 5. In several places in the text I see the contruct 'this MIB' (e.g. first = bullet in 4.2) or MIBs (e.g. in 6.3) - we prefer to say 'this MIB module'. = 'MIB modules'=20 6. This document is Experimental and the SMF-MIB is routed under the Experi= mental subtree. Will the TCs defined here be used only in Experimental MIB = modules? If there are any chances that they will be needed in Standards Tra= ck MIB modules better take these out and define them in a separate document= that defines a separate MIB module under mib-2, otherwise they risk to cre= ate downrefs in the future, as RFCs that define IMPORTed TCs must be Normat= ive References. 7. The SmfOpModeID and SmfRssaID have commented enumerated ranges of values= for future extensions. These two TCs seem to be good candidates for IANA a= dministered TCs.=20 8. Most of the optional REFERENCE clauses look like:=20 REFERENCE "RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." These are not useful. Please add specific section numbers that can help imp= lementers of the MIB objects to find easier the information needed for each= object.=20 9. In the DESCRIPTION clause of SmfRssaID:=20 Several are currently defined in the appendix of RFC 6621." =20 There are several appendices in RFC 6621. Which one?=20 10. It would be nice if all objects under smfConfigurationGroup (and the fo= llowing groups) would be similarly prefixed - e.g. smfCfg... 11. The following definition is problematic:=20 smfOpModeCapabilitiesName OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The textual name of this operational mode. Current operational modes include: 'independent', 'routing', and 'crossLayer' Mode. Others may be defined in future revisions of [SMF]." ::=3D { smfOpModeCapabilitiesEntry 2 } Why define a redundant SnmpAdminString object, and not an object with the S= YNTAX of SmfOpModeID? Especially if the TC will be extended in the future, = maybe in a different MIB module.=20 12. I do not understand this object:=20 smfOpModeCapabilitiesReference OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION=09 "This object contains a reference to the document that defines this operational mode." ::=3D { smfOpModeCapabilitiesEntry 3 } This does not seem the type of information that needs to be stored on an ag= ent. How does the agent know this information at all?=20 13. The following defintion is problematic:=20 smfRssaCapabilitiesName OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The textual name of this RSSA algorithm. Currently defined names are: 'cF', 'sMPR', 'eCDS', 'mprCDS'. " ::=3D { smfRssaCapabilitiesEntry 2 } =20 Why define a redundant SnmpAdminString object, and not an object with the S= YNTAX of SmfRssaIDID? Especially if the TC will be extended in the future, = maybe in a different MIB module.=20 14. I do not understand this object:=20 smfRssaCapabilitiesReference OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object contains a published reference to the document that defines this algorithm. " ::=3D { smfRssaCapabilitiesEntry 3 } This does not seem the type of information that needs to be stored on an ag= ent. How does the agent know this information at all? 15. In the DESCRIPTION clause of smfAdminStatus:=20 If this object is 'disabled', then no SMF functions SHOULD be performed on the device and all smfIfAdminStatus objects SHOULD also be set to 'disabled'. =20 First why the SHOULDs? Are there any exceptions? Second - who is this recom= mendation for? Managers or Agents? If this object is changed from 'enabled'= to 'disabled' then MUST all smfIfAdminStatus be turned automatically to 'd= isabled' or this is something that the manager is supposed to do using SETs= ?=20 16. In the DESCRIPTION clause of smfRouterID:=20 should select a routable IP address assigned to this router for use as the 'smfRouterID'. To be consistent with the rest this 'should' seems to need capitalization. 17. In the DESCRIPTION clause of smfRssaMember:=20 The value 'always(1)' forces the selected RSSA include this agent in the RSS. s/always(1)/always(2)/ 18. in the DESCRIPTION clause of smfDpdMaxMemorySize:=20 The local SMF device should protect itself against the SNMP manager from requesting too large a memory value. If this is the case, What does 'too large a memory value' mean? Is this the higher limit of the = range? Then no condition is needed. Is this some other value within the ran= ge? How does the agent know it? Maybe there is a need for another object to= threshold 'too large'?=20 19. In the same clause:=20 an error indication should be returned in response to the SNMP SET request. Seems like this 'should' needs to be capitalized.=20 20. There is a 'hole' between { smfConfigurationGroup 13} and { smfConfigur= ationGroup 15}. Where did 14 disappear?=20 21. I do not understand the table smfConfiguredAddrForwardingEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfConfiguredAddrForwardingEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry (conceptual row) containing the information on a particular multicast scope." INDEX { smfConfiguredAddrForwardingAddrType, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingFirstAddr, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingLastAddr } ::=3D { smfConfiguredAddrForwardingTable 1 } SmfConfiguredAddrForwardingEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { smfConfiguredAddrForwardingAddrType InetAddressType, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingFirstAddr InetAddress, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingLastAddr InetAddress, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingStatus RowStatus } So there are three indices and one RowStatus object. What kind of informati= on does this table provide? Or what are the consequences of dynamically cre= ating or deleting a row?=20 22. For the object smfIfIndex:=20 The ifIndex for this SMF interface. This value MUST correspond to an ifIndex referring to a valid entry in The Interfaces Table." What happens if the manager creates a row which does not correspond to such= a valid entry?=20 23. The DESCRIPTION clause of smfIfName copies the DESCRIPTION clause of If= Name from RFC 2863. If this is exactly the same information this object is = not needed, as IfName can always be retrieved for a valid entry in the Inte= rfaces Table. If there is some SMF-specific information that this string ca= rries than the information is missing. In any case the SYNTAX should be Snm= pAdminString. 24. All counter objects in this MIB module miss discontinuity information, = the counters at the agent level, and interface level as well. Is this OK? N= o need for counter discontinuity objects? (see section 4.6.1.2 in RFC 4181) 25. I do not understand the object:=20 smfDiscoveredAddrForwardingSource OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The textual description of the method by which this multicast address range was discovered." ::=3D { smfDiscoveredAddrForwardingEntry 4 } If I was writing an implementation of this MIB module I would not know wher= e to take this information from and how to express it. How does the agent f= ill this information and in what format?=20 26. In the Security Considerations section some of the objects have only a = functional description, but not a description of the security risks operato= rs encounter if they are misconfigured. For example 'smfRouterIDAddrType' a= nd 'smfRouterID', 'smfConfiguredOpMode', 'smfIpv4Dpd', o 'smfIpv6Dpd', etc= .=20 27. The Applicability Statement section is useful, and I would actually rec= ommend to extend it with an example of agent configuration.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan From r.kirkwood@wp.pl Sun Oct 6 13:10:27 2013 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 8300B1F0D58 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 13:10:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.641 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.097, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9a6UCn+YkqP4 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 13:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx3.wp.pl (mx3.wp.pl [212.77.101.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B806F1F0ED8 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (wp-smtpd smtp.wp.pl 29817 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2013 22:10:18 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wp.pl; s=1024a; t=1381090218; bh=HOMZ/jZbB6/mhsnEJZFiV8HLQSzvAsAX6Nwt+B+/9D8=; h=From:To:Subject; b=n6RY6N9yMXq8Jo1P/qOutS8CJg2kFC6K9YjG8d1tMnsLFiWZ+PUhYYoyTZiZIV3pL +m7kNl5QQGmRkfo7u0Tt1CUf2tOUiVQ2fb2ZLOAdLjS8R0wk0Lx2z73WvyI6fYpBDn /51Vz/o5p5UGx0gDoywVtx3CPlmr1MZuTy+zAFgY= Received: from out.poczta.wp.pl ([212.77.101.240]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp.wp.pl (WP-SMTPD) with SMTP for ; 6 Oct 2013 22:10:18 +0200 Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:10:18 +0200 From: "Robert Kirkwood" To: manet@ietf.org Message-ID: <5251c3aacfa9f9.67135353@wp.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailer: Interfejs WWW nowej poczty Wirtualnej Polski X-User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0 Organization: Poznaj Poczte WP http://poczta.wp.pl/info-start.html X-WP-IP: 82.44.9.223 X-WP-AV: skaner antywirusowy poczty Wirtualnej Polski S. A. X-WP-SPAM: NO 0000000 [YVNk] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:33:56 -0700 Subject: [manet] QoS-aware Routing Protocols in MANET - code 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, 07 Oct 2013 13:24:01 -0000



Hi,

 

I am working currently on a project at my studies, which cover analysis of QoS-aware routing protocols in MANET, and it would be helpful to perform some scenarios with an ns-2 simulator.

 

I was wondering if you can help me/give any advice, from where I could take a code for any QoS routing protocols for MANET?(if that is possible at all)

 

 

Thank you for any advice,

 

Regards,

R.Kirkwood

 


From jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr Tue Oct 8 02:03:35 2013 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 73CB721E8189 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 02:03:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oSOMrndGcbfA for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 02:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D2721E8166 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 02:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/46573) with ESMTP id r9893LGs006718 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:03:21 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/46573) with ESMTP id r9893LXO017101; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:03:21 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA95959622; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:03:20 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id mSgqtFE2ZKRg; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:03:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (unknown [172.23.36.54]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A4795961E; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:03:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) by lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VTTCJ-0005Dv-Bk; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:03:19 +0200 Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:03:19 +0200 Message-ID: <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:03:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:03:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5253CA59.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5253CA59.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5253CA59.003 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5253CA59.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5253CA59.003 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5253CA59.001 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 09:03:35 -0000 > Can you specify what you would like to see? Link asymmetry? Or data > on ACK loss and how this relates to MANET protocol packet loss? I want to see experimental data that shows whether backwards packet loss with detection of asymmetric neighbours (which is what Henning's draft proposes) does yield results that are good enough in practice. Ideally, I'd like to see a comparison with bidirectional packet loss (which is what ETX/ETT measure). -- Juliusz From sratliff@cisco.com Tue Oct 8 07:26:55 2013 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 A1F8A21E80A9 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:26:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JdtPwYzMYAPc for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6860F21E81CB for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:26:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=910; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381242387; x=1382451987; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Egbixs7NtsLzr7iQ6i4p2K+WIeQJ1B3iEx3Ffb+Vdwc=; b=e55k25KphpvTGimc3JfKuPygi10M1unxy1cEIaRVc6NSgukLjKnsY7Cy mGi1rS1d2EWctyD8Nr3dfBR4ZIp1rIHlodHk/iYjfi2FQbeP6HWdynpVv /eNO6HDS5GfMhh9vmZkWK1d1LT8J+Lju54XA/ZOzdtWR6T7FlpoKWeEQ0 A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAFUVVFKtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4UsEjgR0WdIIlAQEBAwEBAQE3NAsQAgEIDhQUECcLJQIEDgUIh3gGDLpCBI8PAjEHgx+BBAOqAYMkgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1056,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="269484624" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2013 14:26:24 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r98EQOwT007282 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:26:24 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.219]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:26:23 -0500 From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" To: Juliusz Chroboczek Thread-Topic: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released Thread-Index: AQHOxAVJ8WaCmBhuM0iaRO31aC9vuZnrMIGA Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:26:23 +0000 Message-ID: <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.102.41.123] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1E02360A2357B6448671D97017A30B88@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 14:26:56 -0000 On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> Can you specify what you would like to see? Link asymmetry? Or data >> on ACK loss and how this relates to MANET protocol packet loss? >=20 > I want to see experimental data that shows whether backwards packet > loss with detection of asymmetric neighbours (which is what Henning's > draft proposes) does yield results that are good enough in practice. > Ideally, I'd like to see a comparison with bidirectional packet loss > (which is what ETX/ETT measure). So, I assume that you are *volunteering* to produce this data? Stating what= you "want to see" is better received when accompanied by an offer to help = *produce it*.=20 Stan >=20 > -- Juliusz > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From hrogge@googlemail.com Tue Oct 8 07:32:43 2013 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 7F52621E817E for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:32:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cruTpgHc3ISp for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22d.google.com (mail-qc0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0F121E818B for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c3so6024945qcv.18 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:32:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=rNz7PEqEuxLur/PJRwCenpjfPXho+D8b/J/uFTymNVo=; b=z5ZD0T4H2PyfZzANr3J7U3SySUAqvhbdUT0z6EzRawxkQlrgNJ3UEvoEFDS7na+7Zi oW4MeST831zkapFoq+7dARKf1njRTaEFwByT2i3iJGU/lHrJ2CIJoEuQAeJsPMael9s7 fh2RX4Iq+FhoLArdTqy84bfdBvyY+eS+IkQ68PuJ1B1Q/OMpdrRU9OxxIJZPkSg2uPyy g/63/d6n3TjcBH7oz6cjuvKx6kBFgossy3RorvQY7J83BlIvlUAtD8IYGRJByLVYBaku D9QB7bWu3qaGeRkk0/N83bv4BihU60V3U06UmHc8xcNXqINEJKaIBmpervuXTqM1ZK+E NjzA== X-Received: by 10.49.104.5 with SMTP id ga5mr2442844qeb.53.1381242761458; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:32:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.36.200 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:32:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> From: Henning Rogge Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:32:21 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" , Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 14:32:43 -0000 I will try to get some data too, but I just came back from a longer business trip. I think we also need a discussion in the working group about the linkspeed part of the DAT metric. With only 24 bits of output, we cannot handle both gigabit per seconds and very slow links. Do we want to limit the range of the metric or do we introduce a shaping function that compresses the linkspeed? Henning Rogge On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > >>> Can you specify what you would like to see? Link asymmetry? Or data >>> on ACK loss and how this relates to MANET protocol packet loss? >> >> I want to see experimental data that shows whether backwards packet >> loss with detection of asymmetric neighbours (which is what Henning's >> draft proposes) does yield results that are good enough in practice. >> Ideally, I'd like to see a comparison with bidirectional packet loss >> (which is what ETX/ETT measure). > > So, I assume that you are *volunteering* to produce this data? Stating what you "want to see" is better received when accompanied by an offer to help *produce it*. > > Stan > > >> >> -- Juliusz >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan From buddenbergr@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 09:00:25 2013 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 0D6AF21E8212 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:00:09 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8SEUuKz-4Ckr for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-x22d.google.com (mail-pb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6ED821E81DE for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:59:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id mc17so8819833pbc.4 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:59:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :content-type:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5IucuQJg8I5KpSSEN7rIu149rfMoUl5yVi3TsFIYdOs=; b=wPygiY1q8DYxcNPJzNRuf9lGVsSFts7Zr6EPaqqCAFvE0epgb9EWhE1xqgQ4aKGr5w gZcaf8Xa39c2tYrNnlyB9/sFl2fVAhmnorqV6fxLphKliP5jVIhVPCH2ZbfIdsIh1zA/ 3r/u09XeXzn2kk6H0x/UqNh0mZAJKQ6qZYx0K5edmwYA7TkR/O8K1peHMV1FcXAD2G7P 24liS/Vfve92M0NTJt/wuYPLxaIpP7E52e0o65rtD89/oubeKOZPy6/DrbtCkQar1cYD XLB9hNWIE+qsztvVmHYqCyjl3F38P8YtayGtrmlWLxiTC5uoUusfZBWJeSzqE6QgToPD fPzg== X-Received: by 10.68.251.133 with SMTP id zk5mr2756317pbc.69.1381247986439; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (c-50-131-118-52.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.131.118.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xv2sm40894101pbb.39.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1381247983.1600.222.camel@localhost> From: Rex Buddenberg To: Henning Rogge Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:59:43 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4 (3.6.4-3.fc18) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" , Juliusz Chroboczek , "Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 16:00:26 -0000 On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 16:32 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: > > With only 24 bits of output, we cannot handle both gigabit per seconds > and very slow links. Do we want to limit the range of the metric or do > we introduce a shaping function that compresses the linkspeed? Henning, A practical observation. No radio network segment will be larger than M bits -- you're spectrum limited, not EE limited. And the asymmetric links are likely to be the radio ones. So while you may want to be able to characterize a G-bit link, getting it gnats-eyebrow accurate won't matter much. From chris.dearlove@baesystems.com Tue Oct 8 09:10:30 2013 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 BCD6321E8235 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:09:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.367 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x5f7HU7moYaM for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ukmta1.baesystems.com (ukmta1.baesystems.com [20.133.0.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68FEB21E823A for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:05:01 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1057,1371078000"; d="scan'208";a="379250115" Received: from unknown (HELO baemasmds017.greenlnk.net) ([10.15.207.104]) by baemasmds003ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2013 17:04:56 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1057,1371078000"; d="scan'208";a="29337734" Received: from glkxh0003v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.34]) by baemasmds017.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2013 17:04:56 +0100 Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.2.93]) by GLKXH0003V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.34]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:04:56 +0100 From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" To: Henning Rogge , "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" Thread-Topic: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released Thread-Index: AQHOtEgYL4RFg9MyX0Ksbd30pBkUk5nLWXyAgAGGU4CAEEnWAIAA7XSAgAx6CYCAAFpEgIAAAauAgAAp7MA= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:04:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" , Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 16:10:33 -0000 You have to shape the link speed no matter what, because we need a metric w= here high is bad and low is good. And any inversion function is a shaping. = In addition the metric will be treated additively, so you need t consider h= ow that will interact with your shaping. -- = Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194=A0| Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 -----Original Message----- From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of H= enning Rogge Sent: 08 October 2013 15:32 To: Stan Ratliff (sratliff) Cc: manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. -------------------------------------------------------- I will try to get some data too, but I just came back from a longer business trip. I think we also need a discussion in the working group about the linkspeed part of the DAT metric. With only 24 bits of output, we cannot handle both gigabit per seconds and very slow links. Do we want to limit the range of the metric or do we introduce a shaping function that compresses the linkspeed? Henning Rogge On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > >>> Can you specify what you would like to see? Link asymmetry? Or data >>> on ACK loss and how this relates to MANET protocol packet loss? >> >> I want to see experimental data that shows whether backwards packet >> loss with detection of asymmetric neighbours (which is what Henning's >> draft proposes) does yield results that are good enough in practice. >> Ideally, I'd like to see a comparison with bidirectional packet loss >> (which is what ETX/ETT measure). > > So, I assume that you are *volunteering* to produce this data? Stating wh= at you "want to see" is better received when accompanied by an offer to hel= p *produce it*. > > Stan > > >> >> -- Juliusz >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- = We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ******************************************************************** 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 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com Tue Oct 8 09:14:16 2013 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 E9E1111E8137 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:14:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8g+xNw9yE2TG for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ukmta3.baesystems.com (ukmta3.baesystems.com [20.133.40.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DDA21E820F for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:10:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1057,1371078000"; d="scan'208";a="319280547" Received: from unknown (HELO baemasodc005.greenlnk.net) ([10.108.52.29]) by Baemasodc001ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2013 17:10:46 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1057,1371078000"; d="scan'208";a="31219171" Received: from glkxh0002v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.33]) by baemasodc005.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2013 17:10:46 +0100 Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.2.93]) by GLKXH0002V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.33]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:10:46 +0100 From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" To: Rex Buddenberg , Henning Rogge Thread-Topic: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released Thread-Index: AQHOtEgYL4RFg9MyX0Ksbd30pBkUk5nLWXyAgAGGU4CAEEnWAIAA7XSAgAx6CYCAAFpEgIAAAauAgAAYaYCAABL6MA== Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:10:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <1381247983.1600.222.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1381247983.1600.222.camel@localhost> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" , "Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" , Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 16:14:16 -0000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Gigabit_Alliance suggests some people are working on rates above a Gbit/s. Which is quite p= lausible in the 60 GHz band. But metric should not be simply linear with data rate, as previously noted. -- = Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194=A0| Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 -----Original Message----- From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of R= ex Buddenberg Sent: 08 October 2013 17:00 To: Henning Rogge Cc: manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek; Stan Ratliff (sratliff) Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. -------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 16:32 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: > = > With only 24 bits of output, we cannot handle both gigabit per seconds > and very slow links. Do we want to limit the range of the metric or do > we introduce a shaping function that compresses the linkspeed? Henning, A practical observation. No radio network segment will be larger than M bits -- you're spectrum limited, not EE limited. And the asymmetric links are likely to be the radio ones. = So while you may want to be able to characterize a G-bit link, getting it gnats-eyebrow accurate won't matter much. _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ******************************************************************** 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 hrogge@googlemail.com Tue Oct 8 09:19:12 2013 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 E671821E8203 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:19:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VArlVaf0TLYm for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-x233.google.com (mail-qe0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A2621E8260 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ne12so6921947qeb.10 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=2SYbYLPU0h5eieHlOP/ypd8pb4qRzjSqJfswHrqk3iY=; b=o25q3CzrzU1jY+RSHKOkwNo67Bifp9TFIfzDQwFQ7j6a+VqiNW7NiVN7iEkJD7Or6l NVazVembQ7AY6pHkwDjM9j7jTpBI3wzHkoJ4EuW68/ODg62v8mpLJVsESQww0hWhkafK dObTWmcyQCwM1G9ai0ddE1OBt7H3o6XMxYEsHFi3StqWiv1/yEH0JZ6u1A+ToBkU9Sso 3A9xrldyHdbg1RXpRWQu6tPwmo2fG9i+0ctB9bzjP2Y2F3lKaBskgRl1/eMH5jGsv7iZ J1QYGE1nXdbdEdZNnBSgWS7Hi18PvJXHAi5vsJZaY6ItuOIQwLRuCU5Z5eauJKXKHR/P v9Cg== X-Received: by 10.224.40.195 with SMTP id l3mr5099084qae.44.1381248961238; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.36.200 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:15:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <1381247983.1600.222.camel@localhost> From: Henning Rogge Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:15:41 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" , "Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" , Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 16:19:13 -0000 Yes, but at the moment the DAT metric IS linear (inverse linear) to the bitrate, which either will give us a large minimum bitrate or a low maximum one, depending on the factor we apply. So we have to consider using a non-linear function when applying the the bitrate to the metric. Henning Rogge On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Gigabit_Alliance > suggests some people are working on rates above a Gbit/s. Which is quite plausible in the 60 GHz band. > > But metric should not be simply linear with data rate, as previously noted. > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rex Buddenberg > Sent: 08 October 2013 17:00 > To: Henning Rogge > Cc: manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek; Stan Ratliff (sratliff) > Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- > This message originates from outside our organisation, > either from an external partner or from the internet. > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 16:32 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: >> >> With only 24 bits of output, we cannot handle both gigabit per seconds >> and very slow links. Do we want to limit the range of the metric or do >> we introduce a shaping function that compresses the linkspeed? > > Henning, > > A practical observation. No radio network segment will be larger than M > bits -- you're spectrum limited, not EE limited. And the asymmetric > links are likely to be the radio ones. > > So while you may want to be able to characterize a G-bit link, getting > it gnats-eyebrow accurate won't matter much. > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > ******************************************************************** > 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. > ******************************************************************** > -- We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan From chris.dearlove@baesystems.com Tue Oct 8 09:24:53 2013 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 8FDBA21E8236 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:24:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BIRfa2iXNR+p for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ukmta1.baesystems.com (ukmta1.baesystems.com [20.133.0.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC9F21E80AF for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:24:36 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1057,1371078000"; d="scan'208";a="379255744" Received: from unknown (HELO baemasmds017.greenlnk.net) ([10.15.207.104]) by baemasmds003ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2013 17:24:35 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1057,1371078000"; d="scan'208";a="29339614" Received: from glkxh0003v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.34]) by baemasmds017.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2013 17:24:35 +0100 Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.2.93]) by GLKXH0003V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.34]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:24:35 +0100 From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" To: Henning Rogge Thread-Topic: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released Thread-Index: AQHOtEgYL4RFg9MyX0Ksbd30pBkUk5nLWXyAgAGGU4CAEEnWAIAA7XSAgAx6CYCAAFpEgIAAAauAgAAYaYCAABL6MP//8XyAgAARQ3A= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:24:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <1381247983.1600.222.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" , "Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" , Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 16:24:54 -0000 What's the minimum bit rate we actually expect to use? I'll take a stab at 2400 bits/s, or just possibly 1200 bits/s, both used at= HF. We are after all carrying IP traffic, and need to carry some traffic a= s well as the OLSRv2 packets (which would need some compression). So absolute worst case I suggest is bitrate in kbit/s. 24 bits then gives u= s up to 16 Gbit/s. Actually I think I'd shift that up, as I don't really see OLSRv2 being used= quite that far down, and 16 Gbit/s could be exceeded in the foreseeable fu= ture. (Let's also not forget possible free space optical comms.) This isn't intended to agree (but nor disagree) that this is a good approac= h, I'm just considering what if this approach is used here. --=20 Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194=A0| Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 -----Original Message----- From: Henning Rogge [mailto:hrogge@googlemail.com]=20 Sent: 08 October 2013 17:16 To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) Cc: Rex Buddenberg; manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek; Stan Ratliff (= sratliff) Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. -------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but at the moment the DAT metric IS linear (inverse linear) to the bitrate, which either will give us a large minimum bitrate or a low maximum one, depending on the factor we apply. So we have to consider using a non-linear function when applying the the bitrate to the metric. Henning Rogge On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Gigabit_Alliance > suggests some people are working on rates above a Gbit/s. Which is quite= plausible in the 60 GHz band. > > But metric should not be simply linear with data rate, as previously note= d. > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre= , Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Rex Buddenberg > Sent: 08 October 2013 17:00 > To: Henning Rogge > Cc: manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek; Stan Ratliff (sratliff) > Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- > This message originates from outside our organisation, > either from an external partner or from the internet. > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 16:32 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: >> >> With only 24 bits of output, we cannot handle both gigabit per seconds >> and very slow links. Do we want to limit the range of the metric or do >> we introduce a shaping function that compresses the linkspeed? > > Henning, > > A practical observation. No radio network segment will be larger than M > bits -- you're spectrum limited, not EE limited. And the asymmetric > links are likely to be the radio ones. > > So while you may want to be able to characterize a G-bit link, getting > it gnats-eyebrow accurate won't matter much. > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > ******************************************************************** > 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. > ******************************************************************** > --=20 We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan From hrogge@googlemail.com Tue Oct 8 09:34:09 2013 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 460E721E80A9 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:34:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bM8xP5AENiUi for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22c.google.com (mail-qc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D46A21E8221 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l13so6232392qcy.31 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:33:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=6S16XqZhQGDELMwFzlo3FO1BiDpyi3MdQaBlmdlklRo=; b=nk70oi88X0Njq9qMLrOBrsY7C42i9QKWffKN6T+eDacWaAjX5/err12YZHP+AwL9YO Hh455O+PdfmhpTauEP7VDxvW1LuN+gDNSiNo3dnoGDFb27cotQVPOkX+reYKtxdiwR9V xHTeHIdSrqRY21f0uFy0cEjeZsAB5knA0RuAJa0jLUsuaX4CCq4/nmkcePb3mdsRbdNk Wa9BPibuxaFliDbdPAglbf/lZCU5HXjSazOYMTNg4lXUEuTNOAKHhXJNtDGka3vkKQkR FtpAsDKRKnKv29NhZyjQLTbzOOCJQm8JbNvItE9xydYotSkxpAyiS1jCVgtuMZByVND7 fS2g== X-Received: by 10.49.116.210 with SMTP id jy18mr3345641qeb.65.1381250038452; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:33:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.36.200 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:33:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <1381247983.1600.222.camel@localhost> From: Henning Rogge Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:33:38 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" , "Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" , Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 16:34:09 -0000 You forgot we need some "space" for the packet-loss part of the metric too. So if we allow an ETX of 1-4, we can still do 1024 bit/s to 4 gbit/s. That might be an interesting range. Henning Rogge On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > What's the minimum bit rate we actually expect to use? > > I'll take a stab at 2400 bits/s, or just possibly 1200 bits/s, both used at HF. We are after all carrying IP traffic, and need to carry some traffic as well as the OLSRv2 packets (which would need some compression). > > So absolute worst case I suggest is bitrate in kbit/s. 24 bits then gives us up to 16 Gbit/s. > > Actually I think I'd shift that up, as I don't really see OLSRv2 being used quite that far down, and 16 Gbit/s could be exceeded in the foreseeable future. (Let's also not forget possible free space optical comms.) > > This isn't intended to agree (but nor disagree) that this is a good approach, I'm just considering what if this approach is used here. > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henning Rogge [mailto:hrogge@googlemail.com] > Sent: 08 October 2013 17:16 > To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > Cc: Rex Buddenberg; manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek; Stan Ratliff (sratliff) > Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- > This message originates from outside our organisation, > either from an external partner or from the internet. > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes, > > but at the moment the DAT metric IS linear (inverse linear) to the > bitrate, which either will give us a large minimum bitrate or a low > maximum one, depending on the factor we apply. > > So we have to consider using a non-linear function when applying the > the bitrate to the metric. > > Henning Rogge > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > wrote: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Gigabit_Alliance >> suggests some people are working on rates above a Gbit/s. Which is quite plausible in the 60 GHz band. >> >> But metric should not be simply linear with data rate, as previously noted. >> >> -- >> Christopher Dearlove >> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group >> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability >> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre >> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK >> Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com >> >> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited >> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK >> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rex Buddenberg >> Sent: 08 October 2013 17:00 >> To: Henning Rogge >> Cc: manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek; Stan Ratliff (sratliff) >> Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released >> >> ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- >> This message originates from outside our organisation, >> either from an external partner or from the internet. >> Keep this in mind if you answer this message. >> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters >> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> >> On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 16:32 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: >>> >>> With only 24 bits of output, we cannot handle both gigabit per seconds >>> and very slow links. Do we want to limit the range of the metric or do >>> we introduce a shaping function that compresses the linkspeed? >> >> Henning, >> >> A practical observation. No radio network segment will be larger than M >> bits -- you're spectrum limited, not EE limited. And the asymmetric >> links are likely to be the radio ones. >> >> So while you may want to be able to characterize a G-bit link, getting >> it gnats-eyebrow accurate won't matter much. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> >> ******************************************************************** >> 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. >> ******************************************************************** >> > > > > -- > We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered > long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to > set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan > -- We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan From teco@inf-net.nl Tue Oct 8 10:26:55 2013 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 CC74511E8147 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:26:48 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hAFTUfFE-Spe for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-f182.google.com (mail-ea0-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8AD21E8209 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:26:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f182.google.com with SMTP id o10so4195645eaj.13 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=QW5GM0Wlw5B1J1HAyaGysdbpCnSRUOA2U15r83lRYsY=; b=RtyICfbpv7ce9dznEZa1blcbZE4kM7sg6C5LNuno+BfQLmR/0maKT0vbtr/Kr02XGr WRK2hf67f7hBIiZGpyPN/Wm7b5CKdDt5668NWAHfNHgJlbk3thBJkLdAEiIT4KoltJpa TIYBh6qcqHPmpXza/oZGGlI9BrY2gTqW5x8R2UpI/fJkif+JXTRLslmkuDsKCnDIrWzi nLxQCfAxRdXn5PcivWXkeSenI3MvootgBqzrV3oZF8qpGtYb2f19K84Yw56j03wI2uHa 3S+A8g6FOF/N2cH0zthWTn1iOHoy4BrdHZufru2oqvIykeNrHakEady3WMBNBppV9YgL CjjA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnEBLhQ9DL0yI7hie5QK88xwp062c8izqyL3v+nDmDuBlVa97vVLu1Y+LDnxlS5KEKoh06z X-Received: by 10.14.107.68 with SMTP id n44mr4168736eeg.26.1381253197099; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.175.173.95] (524A14A4.cm-4-3a.dynamic.ziggo.nl. [82.74.20.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v8sm78330127eeo.12.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 19:26:34 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <1381247983.1600.222.camel@localhost> To: Henning Rogge X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" , "manet@ietf.org List" , Juliusz Chroboczek , "Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 17:26:55 -0000 I use reserved blocks for certain link types. At the low end, links are = wired, e.g. a bundle 10G fibers would have metric 1. At the high end, = the values are used for redistributed default gateways. Could be less = than 1024bps. 802.11 type of links are somewhere in the middle. Links = with shared medium like 802.11 (or 10Base5 ;-) have a multiplier. Problem with this model is that it is less plug & play. Teco Op 8 okt. 2013, om 18:33 heeft Henning Rogge het = volgende geschreven: > You forgot we need some "space" for the packet-loss part of the metric = too. >=20 > So if we allow an ETX of 1-4, we can still do 1024 bit/s to 4 gbit/s. >=20 > That might be an interesting range. >=20 > Henning Rogge >=20 > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > wrote: >> What's the minimum bit rate we actually expect to use? >>=20 >> I'll take a stab at 2400 bits/s, or just possibly 1200 bits/s, both = used at HF. We are after all carrying IP traffic, and need to carry some = traffic as well as the OLSRv2 packets (which would need some = compression). >>=20 >> So absolute worst case I suggest is bitrate in kbit/s. 24 bits then = gives us up to 16 Gbit/s. >>=20 >> Actually I think I'd shift that up, as I don't really see OLSRv2 = being used quite that far down, and 16 Gbit/s could be exceeded in the = foreseeable future. (Let's also not forget possible free space optical = comms.) >>=20 >> This isn't intended to agree (but nor disagree) that this is a good = approach, I'm just considering what if this approach is used here. >>=20 >> -- >> Christopher Dearlove >> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group >> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability >> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre >> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK >> Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com >>=20 >> 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 >>=20 >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Henning Rogge [mailto:hrogge@googlemail.com] >> Sent: 08 October 2013 17:16 >> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >> Cc: Rex Buddenberg; manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek; Stan = Ratliff (sratliff) >> Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released >>=20 >> ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- >> This message originates from outside our organisation, >> either from an external partner or from the internet. >> Keep this in mind if you answer this message. >> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters >> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. >> -------------------------------------------------------- >>=20 >> Yes, >>=20 >> but at the moment the DAT metric IS linear (inverse linear) to the >> bitrate, which either will give us a large minimum bitrate or a low >> maximum one, depending on the factor we apply. >>=20 >> So we have to consider using a non-linear function when applying the >> the bitrate to the metric. >>=20 >> Henning Rogge >>=20 >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >> wrote: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Gigabit_Alliance >>> suggests some people are working on rates above a Gbit/s. Which is = quite plausible in the 60 GHz band. >>>=20 >>> But metric should not be simply linear with data rate, as previously = noted. >>>=20 >>> -- >>> Christopher Dearlove >>> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group >>> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability >>> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre >>> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK >>> Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 >>> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com >>>=20 >>> 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 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Rex Buddenberg >>> Sent: 08 October 2013 17:00 >>> To: Henning Rogge >>> Cc: manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek; Stan Ratliff (sratliff) >>> Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released >>>=20 >>> ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- >>> This message originates from outside our organisation, >>> either from an external partner or from the internet. >>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message. >>> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters >>> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>=20 >>> On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 16:32 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> With only 24 bits of output, we cannot handle both gigabit per = seconds >>>> and very slow links. Do we want to limit the range of the metric or = do >>>> we introduce a shaping function that compresses the linkspeed? >>>=20 >>> Henning, >>>=20 >>> A practical observation. No radio network segment will be larger = than M >>> bits -- you're spectrum limited, not EE limited. And the asymmetric >>> links are likely to be the radio ones. >>>=20 >>> So while you may want to be able to characterize a G-bit link, = getting >>> it gnats-eyebrow accurate won't matter much. >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> manet mailing list >>> manet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>>=20 >>> ******************************************************************** >>> 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. >>> ******************************************************************** >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered >> long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last = to >> set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered > long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to > set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From christopher.dearlove@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 10:33:15 2013 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 4A4E121E8272 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:33:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lVWjNaVT9FPK for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD6721E8266 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hj3so7034763wib.13 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:33:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=jTmU2QPbLLY4S0Y5dI5JMu6KUb9LoK9WD1TBdR3SdzA=; b=NguZJc7WMMNfX4Vzy6utL1x/TN9xog76ER11eOBZ498awhnULTwah6+RK2c/TAQVet MBxesD7ltyLhawFwq2653QOYQopE+zdK1fRJaamNCyoSoYSq7ipVGRIDF/XZn7BS++UU Ne9iVUKMBUvpWysAQLrW9wWwtP9qehKLl+wrBxbrSjNGauWGTItrkodWbL2dbVWOnlHH AO6SZfbmgSaq2mgDBwhFLSu78GFGvtZcjRKePOtcXSJi+0ErbAT12uSF6jvc4vvZ//mk uO8w96W3REsRwgbVm+K3D6UdASpDDxEz1oki6EF5ZY2b1r1YDnry05tPwdAohPeokMIt Qtcg== X-Received: by 10.180.36.36 with SMTP id n4mr2659972wij.62.1381253589873; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.27.187.158] (dab-hlw1-h-1-8.dab.02.net. [82.132.234.244]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sh5sm7148231wic.11.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:33:09 -0700 (PDT) References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <1381247983.1600.222.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <890E99FA-8B92-4FB0-9254-5E5D256F8FE4@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11A501) From: Christopher Dearlove Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:32:59 +0100 To: Teco Boot Cc: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" , "manet@ietf.org List" , "Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" , Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 08 Oct 2013 17:33:15 -0000 I think there will often be cases that are a bit ad hoc (if you'll pardon th= e expression) and suitable for specific networks. Fortunately we have a priv= ate/experimental block for those. If any of them got into a widely deployed n= etwork we could standardise then. --=20 Christopher Dearlove christopher.dearlove@gmail.com (iPhone) chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk (home) > On 8 Oct 2013, at 18:26, Teco Boot wrote: >=20 > I use reserved blocks for certain link types. At the low end, links are wi= red, e.g. a bundle 10G fibers would have metric 1. At the high end, the valu= es are used for redistributed default gateways. Could be less than 1024bps. 8= 02.11 type of links are somewhere in the middle. Links with shared medium li= ke 802.11 (or 10Base5 ;-) have a multiplier. >=20 > Problem with this model is that it is less plug & play. >=20 > Teco >=20 >> Op 8 okt. 2013, om 18:33 heeft Henning Rogge het v= olgende geschreven: >>=20 >> You forgot we need some "space" for the packet-loss part of the metric to= o. >>=20 >> So if we allow an ETX of 1-4, we can still do 1024 bit/s to 4 gbit/s. >>=20 >> That might be an interesting range. >>=20 >> Henning Rogge >>=20 >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >> wrote: >>> What's the minimum bit rate we actually expect to use? >>>=20 >>> I'll take a stab at 2400 bits/s, or just possibly 1200 bits/s, both used= at HF. We are after all carrying IP traffic, and need to carry some traffic= as well as the OLSRv2 packets (which would need some compression). >>>=20 >>> So absolute worst case I suggest is bitrate in kbit/s. 24 bits then give= s us up to 16 Gbit/s. >>>=20 >>> Actually I think I'd shift that up, as I don't really see OLSRv2 being u= sed quite that far down, and 16 Gbit/s could be exceeded in the foreseeable f= uture. (Let's also not forget possible free space optical comms.) >>>=20 >>> This isn't intended to agree (but nor disagree) that this is a good appr= oach, I'm just considering what if this approach is used here. >>>=20 >>> -- >>> Christopher Dearlove >>> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group >>> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability >>> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre >>> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK >>> Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 >>> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com >>>=20 >>> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited >>> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centr= e, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK >>> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Henning Rogge [mailto:hrogge@googlemail.com] >>> Sent: 08 October 2013 17:16 >>> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >>> Cc: Rex Buddenberg; manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek; Stan Ratlif= f (sratliff) >>> Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released >>>=20 >>> ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- >>> This message originates from outside our organisation, >>> either from an external partner or from the internet. >>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message. >>> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters >>> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>=20 >>> Yes, >>>=20 >>> but at the moment the DAT metric IS linear (inverse linear) to the >>> bitrate, which either will give us a large minimum bitrate or a low >>> maximum one, depending on the factor we apply. >>>=20 >>> So we have to consider using a non-linear function when applying the >>> the bitrate to the metric. >>>=20 >>> Henning Rogge >>>=20 >>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >>> wrote: >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Gigabit_Alliance >>>> suggests some people are working on rates above a Gbit/s. Which is qui= te plausible in the 60 GHz band. >>>>=20 >>>> But metric should not be simply linear with data rate, as previously no= ted. >>>>=20 >>>> -- >>>> Christopher Dearlove >>>> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group >>>> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability >>>> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre >>>> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK >>>> Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 >>>> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com >>>>=20 >>>> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited >>>> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Cent= re, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK >>>> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf O= f Rex Buddenberg >>>> Sent: 08 October 2013 17:00 >>>> To: Henning Rogge >>>> Cc: manet@ietf.org List; Juliusz Chroboczek; Stan Ratliff (sratliff) >>>> Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released >>>>=20 >>>> ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- >>>> This message originates from outside our organisation, >>>> either from an external partner or from the internet. >>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message. >>>> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters >>>> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. >>>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>>=20 >>>>> On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 16:32 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> With only 24 bits of output, we cannot handle both gigabit per seconds= >>>>> and very slow links. Do we want to limit the range of the metric or do= >>>>> we introduce a shaping function that compresses the linkspeed? >>>>=20 >>>> Henning, >>>>=20 >>>> A practical observation. No radio network segment will be larger than M= >>>> bits -- you're spectrum limited, not EE limited. And the asymmetric >>>> links are likely to be the radio ones. >>>>=20 >>>> So while you may want to be able to characterize a G-bit link, getting >>>> it gnats-eyebrow accurate won't matter much. >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> manet mailing list >>>> manet@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>>>=20 >>>> ******************************************************************** >>>> 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. >>>> ******************************************************************** >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -- >>> We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered >>> long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to >>> set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered >> long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to >> set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From robert.g.cole.civ@mail.mil Tue Oct 8 14:17:30 2013 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 99D3521F9CA5; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:17:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0TXHPuRug50H; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from edge-cols.mail.mil (edge-cols.mail.mil [131.64.100.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BD321F8E51; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from UCOLHP3P.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.155) by edge-cols.mail.mil (131.64.100.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:17:22 +0000 Received: from UCOLHP9H.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.4.51]) by UCOLHP3P.easf.csd.disa.mil ([131.64.100.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.002; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:17:22 +0000 From: "Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "manet@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib.all@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 (UNCLASSIFIED) Thread-Index: AQHOxGvG6KnxkS3FE0y8Bi6NW1ekhQ== Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:17:21 +0000 Message-ID: References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128EF9C2@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128EF9C2@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [131.64.62.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "MIB Doctors \(E-mail\)" Subject: Re: [manet] 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 (UNCLASSIFIED) 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, 08 Oct 2013 21:17:30 -0000 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Dan, Thanks for the review. I'll start working these issues and get back to you= with the updated MIB module and a detailed list of corrections. Bob US Army CERDEC QUEST Program, S&TCD APG, MD (c) 443.910.4420 (o) 443.395.8744 robert.g.cole@us.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 2:02 PM To: manet@ietf.org; draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: MIB Doctors (E-mail) Subject: 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 Please find below the 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08.=20 1. Running smilint results in the following level 5 warnings:=20 mibs/SMF-MIB:396: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType'= should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:421: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' = object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:785: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType'= should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:806: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' = object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:824: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' = object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:1112: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType= ' should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:1126: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress'= object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:1140: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress'= object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:1215: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType= ' should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:1226: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress'= object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object Concerning the first category of warnings ' InetAddressType' should not be = subtyped ': indeed, as per RFC 4001:=20 > To support future extensions, the InetAddressType textual convention SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in object type definitions. It MAY be sub-typed in compliance statements in order to require only a subset of these address types for a compliant implementation. =20 I recommend giving up subtyping in the MIB and miving it to the compliance = statements for the respective objects.=20 Concerning the second category of warnings ' `InetAddress' object should ha= ve an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object ': Actually such object= s exist but they are defined for a pair of IP addresses for the two ends of= a range. The warnings can be ignored, but I recommend to clarify in the DE= SCRIPTION clauses of each object with an InetAddress SYNTAX what is the rel= evant object with the InetAddressType SYNTAX.=20 2. In the abstract:=20 > The SMF-MIB also reports state information, performance metrics, and notifications. =20 It is actually the performance information that is being reported - I sugge= st to change the wording.=20 3. In Section 4.1:=20 > Figure 1 (reproduced from Figure 4 of [RFC6621]) shows ... Actually Figure 1 here is reproduced from Figure 1 (and not 4) of [RFC6621] 4. When copying Figure 1 the asterisks in the RFC6621 figure were also copi= ed. They are not relevant (I think) and not explained here - I suggest to d= elete them.=20 5. In several places in the text I see the contruct 'this MIB' (e.g. first = bullet in 4.2) or MIBs (e.g. in 6.3) - we prefer to say 'this MIB module'. = 'MIB modules'=20 6. This document is Experimental and the SMF-MIB is routed under the Experi= mental subtree. Will the TCs defined here be used only in Experimental MIB = modules? If there are any chances that they will be needed in Standards Tra= ck MIB modules better take these out and define them in a separate document= that defines a separate MIB module under mib-2, otherwise they risk to cre= ate downrefs in the future, as RFCs that define IMPORTed TCs must be Normat= ive References. 7. The SmfOpModeID and SmfRssaID have commented enumerated ranges of values= for future extensions. These two TCs seem to be good candidates for IANA a= dministered TCs.=20 8. Most of the optional REFERENCE clauses look like:=20 REFERENCE "RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." These are not useful. Please add specific section numbers that can help imp= lementers of the MIB objects to find easier the information needed for each= object.=20 9. In the DESCRIPTION clause of SmfRssaID:=20 Several are currently defined in the appendix of RFC 6621." =20 There are several appendices in RFC 6621. Which one?=20 10. It would be nice if all objects under smfConfigurationGroup (and the fo= llowing groups) would be similarly prefixed - e.g. smfCfg... 11. The following definition is problematic:=20 smfOpModeCapabilitiesName OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The textual name of this operational mode. Current operational modes include: 'independent', 'routing', and 'crossLayer' Mode. Others may be defined in future revisions of [SMF]." ::=3D { smfOpModeCapabilitiesEntry 2 } Why define a redundant SnmpAdminString object, and not an object with the S= YNTAX of SmfOpModeID? Especially if the TC will be extended in the future, = maybe in a different MIB module.=20 12. I do not understand this object:=20 smfOpModeCapabilitiesReference OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION=09 "This object contains a reference to the document that defines this operational mode." ::=3D { smfOpModeCapabilitiesEntry 3 } This does not seem the type of information that needs to be stored on an ag= ent. How does the agent know this information at all?=20 13. The following defintion is problematic:=20 smfRssaCapabilitiesName OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The textual name of this RSSA algorithm. Currently defined names are: 'cF', 'sMPR', 'eCDS', 'mprCDS'. " ::=3D { smfRssaCapabilitiesEntry 2 } =20 Why define a redundant SnmpAdminString object, and not an object with the S= YNTAX of SmfRssaIDID? Especially if the TC will be extended in the future, = maybe in a different MIB module.=20 14. I do not understand this object:=20 smfRssaCapabilitiesReference OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object contains a published reference to the document that defines this algorithm. " ::=3D { smfRssaCapabilitiesEntry 3 } This does not seem the type of information that needs to be stored on an ag= ent. How does the agent know this information at all? 15. In the DESCRIPTION clause of smfAdminStatus:=20 If this object is 'disabled', then no SMF functions SHOULD be performed on the device and all smfIfAdminStatus objects SHOULD also be set to 'disabled'. =20 First why the SHOULDs? Are there any exceptions? Second - who is this recom= mendation for? Managers or Agents? If this object is changed from 'enabled'= to 'disabled' then MUST all smfIfAdminStatus be turned automatically to 'd= isabled' or this is something that the manager is supposed to do using SETs= ?=20 16. In the DESCRIPTION clause of smfRouterID:=20 should select a routable IP address assigned to this router for use as the 'smfRouterID'. To be consistent with the rest this 'should' seems to need capitalization. 17. In the DESCRIPTION clause of smfRssaMember:=20 The value 'always(1)' forces the selected RSSA include this agent in the RSS. s/always(1)/always(2)/ 18. in the DESCRIPTION clause of smfDpdMaxMemorySize:=20 The local SMF device should protect itself against the SNMP manager from requesting too large a memory value. If this is the case, What does 'too large a memory value' mean? Is this the higher limit of the = range? Then no condition is needed. Is this some other value within the ran= ge? How does the agent know it? Maybe there is a need for another object to= threshold 'too large'?=20 19. In the same clause:=20 an error indication should be returned in response to the SNMP SET request. Seems like this 'should' needs to be capitalized.=20 20. There is a 'hole' between { smfConfigurationGroup 13} and { smfConfigur= ationGroup 15}. Where did 14 disappear?=20 21. I do not understand the table smfConfiguredAddrForwardingEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfConfiguredAddrForwardingEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry (conceptual row) containing the information on a particular multicast scope." INDEX { smfConfiguredAddrForwardingAddrType, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingFirstAddr, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingLastAddr } ::=3D { smfConfiguredAddrForwardingTable 1 } SmfConfiguredAddrForwardingEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { smfConfiguredAddrForwardingAddrType InetAddressType, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingFirstAddr InetAddress, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingLastAddr InetAddress, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingStatus RowStatus } So there are three indices and one RowStatus object. What kind of informati= on does this table provide? Or what are the consequences of dynamically cre= ating or deleting a row?=20 22. For the object smfIfIndex:=20 The ifIndex for this SMF interface. This value MUST correspond to an ifIndex referring to a valid entry in The Interfaces Table." What happens if the manager creates a row which does not correspond to such= a valid entry?=20 23. The DESCRIPTION clause of smfIfName copies the DESCRIPTION clause of If= Name from RFC 2863. If this is exactly the same information this object is = not needed, as IfName can always be retrieved for a valid entry in the Inte= rfaces Table. If there is some SMF-specific information that this string ca= rries than the information is missing. In any case the SYNTAX should be Snm= pAdminString. 24. All counter objects in this MIB module miss discontinuity information, = the counters at the agent level, and interface level as well. Is this OK? N= o need for counter discontinuity objects? (see section 4.6.1.2 in RFC 4181) 25. I do not understand the object:=20 smfDiscoveredAddrForwardingSource OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The textual description of the method by which this multicast address range was discovered." ::=3D { smfDiscoveredAddrForwardingEntry 4 } If I was writing an implementation of this MIB module I would not know wher= e to take this information from and how to express it. How does the agent f= ill this information and in what format?=20 26. In the Security Considerations section some of the objects have only a = functional description, but not a description of the security risks operato= rs encounter if they are misconfigured. For example 'smfRouterIDAddrType' a= nd 'smfRouterID', 'smfConfiguredOpMode', 'smfIpv4Dpd', o 'smfIpv6Dpd', etc= .=20 27. The Applicability Statement section is useful, and I would actually rec= ommend to extend it with an example of agent configuration.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE From henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de Wed Oct 9 05:46:08 2013 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 74BBB21F9BC2 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:46:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3nQniN-XYEIz for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de (a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de [IPv6:2001:638:401:102:1aa9:5ff:fe5f:7f22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF44711E8183 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufsun5.fkie.fgan.de ([128.7.2.5] helo=mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VTt99-0005zO-AK for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:45:47 +0200 Received: from mailserv2bcas.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.96.56] helo=mailserv2.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VTt99-0000NW-7M for manet@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:45:47 +0200 Received: from [128.7.5.36] (128.7.5.36) by MAILSERV2BCAS.lorien.fkie.fgan.de (128.7.96.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:45:47 +0200 Message-ID: <52554FED.9060001@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:45:33 +0200 From: Henning Rogge User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms000305030203050501020401" X-Originating-IP: [128.7.5.36] X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.97.8/17951/Wed Oct 9 04:14:49 2013) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de X-Scan-Signature: 676a75961403c53da43f811dd9e91d0e Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 09 Oct 2013 12:46:08 -0000 --------------ms000305030203050501020401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/08/2013 06:04 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > You have to shape the link speed no matter what, because we need a > metric where high is bad and low is good. And any inversion function > is a shaping. In addition the metric will be treated additively, so > you need t consider how that will interact with your shaping. Yes, that is right. But at the moment we just use loss divided by linkspeed (with a constant factor), which is something roughly proportional to the airtime used by the transmission. If we use a non-linear function for mapping the linkspeed to the cost, we get a better range of linkspeed, but loose the airtime meaning. I think we should NOT use the encoding of 1 for the best linkspeed combined with "no loss". If we do, the second best loss we can signal become "ETX 2.0", which is a huge step. I would suggest using 4 as the minimal setting of the metric, which means we can signal "ETX 1.25" (20% loss) and ETX 1.5 (33% loss) as the next steps. I agree with Teco that we should have at least the capability to signal a link-speed of 1 GBit/s. (I hope I did not again introduced a math error in this calculation) 1 GBit/s, ETX 1.0: cost 4 (compr. 4: a=3D 3,b=3D 0). 1 GBit/s, ETX 4.0: cost 16 (compr. 16: a=3D 15,b=3D 0). 100 MBit/s, ETX 1.0: cost 41 (compr. 41: a=3D 40,b=3D 0). 100 MBit/s, ETX 4.0: cost 164 (compr. 164: a=3D163,b=3D 0). 10 MBit/s, ETX 1.0: cost 410 (compr. 410: a=3D 76,b=3D 1). 10 MBit/s, ETX 4.0: cost 1640 (compr. 1640: a=3D217,b=3D 2). 1 MBit/s, ETX 1.0: cost 4096 (compr. 4096: a=3D 15,b=3D 4). 1 MBit/s, ETX 4.0: cost 16384 (compr. 16384: a=3D 3,b=3D 6). 100 KBit/s, ETX 1.0: cost 41943 (compr. 41984: a=3D 73,b=3D 7). 100 KBit/s, ETX 4.0: cost 167772 (compr. 167680: a=3D 71,b=3D 9). 10 KBit/s, ETX 1.0: cost 419430 (compr. 419584: a=3D153,b=3D10). 10 KBit/s, ETX 4.0: cost 1677722 (compr. 1679104: a=3D159,b=3D12). 1 KBit/s, ETX 1.0: cost 4194304 (compr. 4194048: a=3D255,b=3D13). 1 KBit/s, ETX 4.0: cost 16777216 (compr. 16776960: a=3D255,b=3D15). What do you think about this distribution? Henning Rogge --=20 Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut f=FCr Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE Kommunikationssysteme (KOM) Fraunhofer Stra=DFe 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany Telefon +49 228 9435-961, Fax +49 228 9435 685 mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de --------------ms000305030203050501020401 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIUYDCC BC4wggMWoAMCAQICAgEMMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMHExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkRFMRwwGgYDVQQK ExNEZXV0c2NoZSBUZWxla29tIEFHMR8wHQYDVQQLExZULVRlbGVTZWMgVHJ1c3QgQ2VudGVy MSMwIQYDVQQDExpEZXV0c2NoZSBUZWxla29tIFJvb3QgQ0EgMjAeFw0wNzEyMDUxNTE4NTha Fw0xOTA2MzAyMzU5NTlaMGcxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkRFMRMwEQYDVQQKEwpGcmF1bmhvZmVyMSEw HwYDVQQLExhGcmF1bmhvZmVyIENvcnBvcmF0ZSBQS0kxIDAeBgNVBAMTF0ZyYXVuaG9mZXIg Um9vdCBDQSAyMDA3MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAwz0eyWWNW4g3 9z7BIbZU3rA6VxsaHO6YCHQBWm+13zZXK0RFzvNGE2V2lZhUx6iFFW4SpBfoC+EhpzE9Kd3/ o9ZP0rSJ/WNK2qtT71kFtE/iOyqRmcDLZVeBozCTkA7Jvf0VMjIIpEh8VgXyuzaJ4kjCb0uS DCVFvq0+1McB7bHIErQwCG6nb396IKe7tOU1gFQsGY/ZS8Adq0P4YRSU+7AdXbeR7GLAkdFe 3acLsy0fZjkYPK4EFOXSfTbZss2nE7DMRZ1WBFFxMzZcL11RE55PSJAOl1pLcNu5edmh1pTI ktCl+2C/La2ecQAXhsD9SGadFEwFTkzRcUQL0HoPsQIDAQABo4HZMIHWMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaA FDHDeRu69VPXF+CJei0XbAqzK50zMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUL0VCHjEF gNVw2PgdV8tbetU9nPcwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBATBwBgNVHR8EaTBnMGWgY6Bhhl9o dHRwOi8vcGtpLnRlbGVzZWMuZGUvY2dpLWJpbi9zZXJ2aWNlL2FmX0Rvd25sb2FkQVJMLmNy bD8tY3JsX2Zvcm1hdD1YXzUwOSYtaXNzdWVyPURUX1JPT1RfQ0FfMjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOCAQEAGrdMejzl3cJjst6GJU5FYkz08o9fXdfljc4O1/WU4YuTMTanmiPnZ+FSwVoY1pnh gGQ4D0o1M11meijcOH83cs1SdW4Qjmx9jPcp63fCuRkF1Lc9YbroBRLUUGJT7yJUYvxNAcNe 1A2DdGlR1TyerNukK3xthJbTcU3P1S1xo5LEP1XPmz0jdwdX6cjOHZe2M/uRl2CWD/f23m8l kBKrGUfVRCOuwZI1KL8qQ14P6gdd0kTQhYLjErxH6iyt+PBBUn02uiKfeqAy70u8+ToHtinG fThfNVV+OPI/fLPuLW4heF+5E8/v3mWAyCX1Zi1USq3O2S4OMM+AM6eLGXLqQTCCBMYwggOu oAMCAQICCmEdMxkAAAAAAAMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwZzELMAkGA1UEBhMCREUxEzARBgNV BAoTCkZyYXVuaG9mZXIxITAfBgNVBAsTGEZyYXVuaG9mZXIgQ29ycG9yYXRlIFBLSTEgMB4G A1UEAxMXRnJhdW5ob2ZlciBSb290IENBIDIwMDcwHhcNMDcxMjEyMTQ0OTM1WhcNMTkwNjMw MjM1OTU5WjBnMQswCQYDVQQGEwJERTETMBEGA1UEChMKRnJhdW5ob2ZlcjEhMB8GA1UECxMY RnJhdW5ob2ZlciBDb3Jwb3JhdGUgUEtJMSAwHgYDVQQDExdGcmF1bmhvZmVyIFVzZXIgQ0Eg MjAwNzCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMJ0EFHLddGB8Ss1nVqCOq+S rs0C/K7I+yB3Dv9oEhWQSadnfGgkX/oOJhplPkqeCQrTh08zEYprVaJLTaVPVhvjx3h5+KML 3lVGZIfajA89TolhLwk+ml29VbqV5nLhNrSwdZy157b6dCu5JffxvpO5wXCn95Z/TLyLdeux gVHs/MnhczvmBbBRS+Ow9UoKn+PZvyYmUEdOHg8cA5PGFaRP9q88q734VnlI+W4+y7BoN5wt uqVrqWbbpOQ2sHYo9riv3b+x5WdsMrVieKGApQ/dNvgB5vuuAchRnsANZHgpAiPCzP7/QFYY qk2undcxEXwPgo72oifB3uQZ3xHOV/cCAwEAAaOCAXIwggFuMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8C AQAwHQYDVR0OBBYEFE8dr4jKbbiqHAn5xdER7Vm0k/oLMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBQvRUIeMQWA1XDY+B1Xy1t61T2c9zB1BgNVHR8EbjBsMGqgaKBmhjFodHRwOi8v Y3JsLnBraS5mcmF1bmhvZmVyLmRlL2ZoZy1yb290LWNhLTIwMDcuY3JshjFodHRwOi8vY3Js LmZyYXVuaG9mZXItcGtpLmRlL2ZoZy1yb290LWNhLTIwMDcuY3JsMIGQBggrBgEFBQcBAQSB gzCBgDA+BggrBgEFBQcwAoYyaHR0cDovL2NlcnQucGtpLmZyYXVuaG9mZXIuZGUvZmhnLXJv b3QtY2EtMjAwNy5jZXIwPgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGMmh0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LmZyYXVuaG9mZXItcGtp LmRlL2ZoZy1yb290LWNhLTIwMDcuY2VyMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAAd2yMM/nuVwQl ysuIOeZOTKTOwpZLGYZNuERXwpWpEDfsMFUxX/Wetbu1a1qhd+x6SyXY4V1CzcFDOGF3wA7b yIV/6dyC53I9luZTjy9zjUsjLZucD4jeNja3QEu39sQsYsuE3MTfFFJgr/NeAFMHVkkHGx3l VXb+F3J3+9xeXHk/wB/yIKd/RIiMMTT4+a+ra2MTCsYAe4kgJ0vz2TXYGN8tujjCgsUUbwfJ C9wrOiCJMNJM1i7sUVqVKIoswW7h5QpWUNu1E4RAsDEz7depXCYaAIwPprEIkr0dE63zqHhm M4egS7iGmBfNQohUO6jJOWNcJ9dIxqc0c/4WUHg8MIIFqDCCBJCgAwIBAgIKNBvreAAAAAC6 5zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADBnMQswCQYDVQQGEwJERTETMBEGA1UEChMKRnJhdW5ob2ZlcjEh MB8GA1UECxMYRnJhdW5ob2ZlciBDb3Jwb3JhdGUgUEtJMSAwHgYDVQQDExdGcmF1bmhvZmVy IFVzZXIgQ0EgMjAwNzAeFw0xMDAyMDExMTQwMzRaFw0xNjAxMzExMTQwMzRaMFoxCzAJBgNV BAYTAkRFMRMwEQYDVQQKEwpGcmF1bmhvZmVyMQ0wCwYDVQQLEwRGS0lFMQ8wDQYDVQQLEwZQ ZW9wbGUxFjAUBgNVBAMTDUhlbm5pbmcgUm9nZ2UwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAw ggEKAoIBAQDGyBP1VGWGIStoEyrMjSDmeQ+tJOnuPlNL8ZOMqGLCbKviFnpW66uAOFMy6XPs lEtkkxcmoTCMQGo+IegZMSSAeXXro/+XHY6v6P1eIc9g/EmMM69GRayvD5Ja6LJpxuuhJNoP DPucDfxHbuNdRIQrKLRKaFdiIFQiGHX+wR/+4OaL2gGF+PqA6PMz+8szs0mqLvQITpQxrQ+H xHsf6vBheFCVVZnNScq+3o4kUngcsm+brEet6I6tT3uQ+XCLdhBlTELjf2Bg9jTCYUSZ100c 5DZ+O2ShBhH0iAZZ8/e9tDydfFRMiU6FLnH2xJpJT+lNgEm/vFjKM+tL1IgaXlupAgMBAAGj ggJhMIICXTAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBsAwKwYDVR0RBCQwIoEgaGVubmluZy5yb2dnZUBma2ll LmZyYXVuaG9mZXIuZGUwHQYDVR0OBBYEFAF+BKuwGS5faYqP3YNRvNbSLSvzMB8GA1UdIwQY MBaAFE8dr4jKbbiqHAn5xdER7Vm0k/oLMHUGA1UdHwRuMGwwaqBooGaGMWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwu cGtpLmZyYXVuaG9mZXIuZGUvZmhnLXVzZXItY2EtMjAwNy5jcmyGMWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuZnJh dW5ob2Zlci1wa2kuZGUvZmhnLXVzZXItY2EtMjAwNy5jcmwwggEKBggrBgEFBQcBAQSB/TCB +jA+BggrBgEFBQcwAoYyaHR0cDovL2NlcnQucGtpLmZyYXVuaG9mZXIuZGUvZmhnLXVzZXIt Y2EtMjAwNy5jZXIwPgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGMmh0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LmZyYXVuaG9mZXItcGtpLmRl L2ZoZy11c2VyLWNhLTIwMDcuY2VyMDsGCCsGAQUFBzABhi9odHRwOi8vZmhnLXVzZXItY2Et MjAwNy5vY3NwLnBraS5mcmF1bmhvZmVyLmRlLzA7BggrBgEFBQcwAYYvaHR0cDovL2ZoZy11 c2VyLWNhLTIwMDcub2NzcC5mcmF1bmhvZmVyLXBraS5kZS8wEwYDVR0lBAwwCgYIKwYBBQUH AwQwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgsrBgEEAYYKUAMBATAqMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwOi8vcGtp LmZyYXVuaG9mZXIuZGUvY3AvMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQA5rI5kuTR9B+FDsjRDOfor O4PiLGvO15JchMe7VEn3/fF5umUSbpgj+PAws0Wd+CVer70j6saMT8/FI5bqorwIDfUMijyp eGzG+98XfKsXMcvODIJxZ2jF6vZi98qkkl/HQEo8Yy+4B5Mmnkv4+5ZwaS+YNv/BHAAk5+M1 KiQ11zbuTdP4dO1c2wytDMZZ4hkWcr6lJCb+BagNft01kTn3b8OrxGnzeN53CXkIMEp3QHo8 MIzu+wQD0/70v3/XjYf/W7qBhU2VHsaGyMKNS2y+kNmsw80B3bBUA+iqInRat8b8gS4DlLJK 575p5+Vu8zENPVxYWeKCGJq1ZhvHA2Y8MIIFtDCCBJygAwIBAgIKNBvo6AAAAAC65jANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFADBnMQswCQYDVQQGEwJERTETMBEGA1UEChMKRnJhdW5ob2ZlcjEhMB8GA1UE CxMYRnJhdW5ob2ZlciBDb3Jwb3JhdGUgUEtJMSAwHgYDVQQDExdGcmF1bmhvZmVyIFVzZXIg Q0EgMjAwNzAeFw0xMDAyMDExMTQwMzRaFw0xNjAxMzExMTQwMzRaMFoxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkRF MRMwEQYDVQQKEwpGcmF1bmhvZmVyMQ0wCwYDVQQLEwRGS0lFMQ8wDQYDVQQLEwZQZW9wbGUx FjAUBgNVBAMTDUhlbm5pbmcgUm9nZ2UwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIB AQCiy6VbXF1fXG4ehffqb8Dr1J8PC9+xeatiAjSqFIOCi9GdbFPrh3EIrb69T4uyQ+ejWbRE lNFsqBWjo7yPX+hT84FWmLzYMz3uZYxTFgSnB4ot2r5E5Nk9TAVjxB/PwQn9xmPKsQFizw3E B9E8VFYZ34GuQo0i8H2avvs9Br+sD6oS41OYpjQ1uXhUCDCYZXftEUDYIvPfzBzji6WgkkrJ ggDsJsgxp7eSNQrL1hjnmTKOAJjdzbX9hXiu44TAG73J8QGbHHQTU/T98Hsbf7t3qQEv5q8/ 9CHBiZ0mMWxqthKZSlen0/X5zwcVPDlNgZQu2Px/8VZCWZGNYPNJy3h5AgMBAAGjggJtMIIC aTAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBDAwKwYDVR0RBCQwIoEgaGVubmluZy5yb2dnZUBma2llLmZyYXVu aG9mZXIuZGUwHQYDVR0OBBYEFGKv/4QFgBRbo8Gnqxgea4ZfX5+yMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFE8d r4jKbbiqHAn5xdER7Vm0k/oLMHUGA1UdHwRuMGwwaqBooGaGMWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwucGtpLmZy YXVuaG9mZXIuZGUvZmhnLXVzZXItY2EtMjAwNy5jcmyGMWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuZnJhdW5ob2Zl ci1wa2kuZGUvZmhnLXVzZXItY2EtMjAwNy5jcmwwggEKBggrBgEFBQcBAQSB/TCB+jA+Bggr BgEFBQcwAoYyaHR0cDovL2NlcnQucGtpLmZyYXVuaG9mZXIuZGUvZmhnLXVzZXItY2EtMjAw Ny5jZXIwPgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGMmh0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LmZyYXVuaG9mZXItcGtpLmRlL2ZoZy11 c2VyLWNhLTIwMDcuY2VyMDsGCCsGAQUFBzABhi9odHRwOi8vZmhnLXVzZXItY2EtMjAwNy5v Y3NwLnBraS5mcmF1bmhvZmVyLmRlLzA7BggrBgEFBQcwAYYvaHR0cDovL2ZoZy11c2VyLWNh LTIwMDcub2NzcC5mcmF1bmhvZmVyLXBraS5kZS8wHwYDVR0lBBgwFgYKKwYBBAGCNwoDBAYI KwYBBQUHAwQwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgsrBgEEAYYKUAMBATAqMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRw Oi8vcGtpLmZyYXVuaG9mZXIuZGUvY3AvMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAE9gjUduqKmz/S j7aboa7DDvKz/kX76pJg+rrDgK2XK4+6ktl0rMRW5nafV+ilm4Sd1PIJOrwNQnBlco8QhgpA aGRsU3LcgNocHlUdpfQmypXgOyAPpdraOcQFCmLLxHEwo/mZjk1FLiM7on5sWOsyIpuMOXO8 knHLqSrLx5+PEfpF0yMbFBFwxLgRROzsNG7fwDzVcQZqqq2NzA3efcS8lRVwHNefrcGZvhuC /VToNhcUxIxySyyxqmax0vQQ9coBYFFyzCi562NEFcgV+7XEoUg23DJrHpEJnJwARd10ULqP /cFW+LqI0VITVVVDH4dDPUSEYFynzRbeqci+g7VSMYIDezCCA3cCAQEwdTBnMQswCQYDVQQG EwJERTETMBEGA1UEChMKRnJhdW5ob2ZlcjEhMB8GA1UECxMYRnJhdW5ob2ZlciBDb3Jwb3Jh dGUgUEtJMSAwHgYDVQQDExdGcmF1bmhvZmVyIFVzZXIgQ0EgMjAwNwIKNBvreAAAAAC65zAJ BgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB2zAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEP Fw0xMzEwMDkxMjQ1NDVaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBQkpR2gYJCPhrMHlS4osyn72nKJIzBs BgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcw DgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEo MIGEBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxdzB1MGcxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkRFMRMwEQYDVQQKEwpGcmF1bmhvZmVy MSEwHwYDVQQLExhGcmF1bmhvZmVyIENvcnBvcmF0ZSBQS0kxIDAeBgNVBAMTF0ZyYXVuaG9m ZXIgVXNlciBDQSAyMDA3Ago0G+joAAAAALrmMIGGBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzF3oHUwZzELMAkG A1UEBhMCREUxEzARBgNVBAoTCkZyYXVuaG9mZXIxITAfBgNVBAsTGEZyYXVuaG9mZXIgQ29y cG9yYXRlIFBLSTEgMB4GA1UEAxMXRnJhdW5ob2ZlciBVc2VyIENBIDIwMDcCCjQb6OgAAAAA uuYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAZ+c5uAyd8Exmm7++OETG/Dg7HyfNagDXRQ0Zm9d6jfj2 pIFkuEgVaryjZsHZreXiMRsdy2bHiwTWoByBLpfTymTkZ3PtRBS31lDS1mjnQ6/eC6ApQV4F UVZyKqZLC5CBPuxR5RY5f3DOYzSnXTB6c85/+W5KqaPy6/eZhP4os0ppRzKwNzPRiC9YU+xB 03ymNrAaOZCJYoFRFW2XpIxXpvtiZ5dFoPvJL+uCoWVCWjSr7PKbMbGprRIa5ibKmoRyurbn 9yWRQ5BYbIo3lplsnOhsvSv4NWF1eY8Hn8Lsa1Tpcp6A+NNDaSRVDwWy00/uOnED/yObYK29 mbl64DS+iQAAAAAAAA== --------------ms000305030203050501020401-- From jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr Wed Oct 9 06:31:57 2013 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 0A92D21E811C for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 06:31:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TeiomTuDSjjW for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 06:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A52321E8141 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 06:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/46573) with ESMTP id r99DVYAE024144; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:31:34 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229F459800; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:31:34 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id tCYq7xT4GU_f; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:31:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (unknown [172.23.36.54]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B192D597FF; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:31:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) by lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VTtrQ-0005qv-Ft; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:31:32 +0200 Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:31:32 +0200 Message-ID: <7ifvsa1sgb.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" In-Reply-To: <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:31:34 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 52555AB6.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 52555AB6.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 52555AB6.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 09 Oct 2013 13:31:57 -0000 >> I want to see experimental data that shows whether backwards packet >> loss with detection of asymmetric neighbours (which is what Henning's >> draft proposes) does yield results that are good enough in practice. >> Ideally, I'd like to see a comparison with bidirectional packet loss >> (which is what ETX/ETT measure). > So, I assume that you are *volunteering* to produce this data? I'll certainly be glad to work with Henning on producing the suitable data. (We'll probably be meeting in May at WBM, that could be an opportunity do work on that.) > Stating what you "want to see" is better received when accompanied > by an offer to help *produce it*. Sorry, Stan, but it doesn't work that way. It was Henning's choice to use a unidirectional loss metric rather than one of the bidirectional metrics that have been studied in the peer-reviewed literature; and the MANET group has chosen to go with it. It is the duty of the proponents to justify their choice, in particular by showing that it does not behave significantly worse than the better studied metrics. Or are you suggesting that as far as the IETF MANET group is concerned, implementations and experimental data are not desirable? -- Juliusz From sratliff@cisco.com Wed Oct 9 09:08:31 2013 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 95FFB21F9BB6 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:08:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wRySWG4LRZXk for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACD821F9EAE for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:06:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1691; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381334810; x=1382544410; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=lmLeQRoTyDlZk/gaFjMGxoKaobL5BZz2jlrH8KbFWSA=; b=IBmmWrnhhmYy1KgbrvjLHop1lnKBi3pU7qrwLXyNVaCNZoZU85cEGIpk WOTICPbt+9KiQoFmwjgv5weirvGz30uyOadNnf7KHNRnZdz6PElImHK9A Q1HQv2PwNwzRD0YjObNJsEplokyRPukjhlKFW6DKz5oTkJAnQqWCZ8lGf M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiwFALJ+VVKtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABagweBCsE2gR0WdIIlAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgOFCQyJQIEDgUIh3gGuQOPEgIxB4MfgQQDqgSDJIIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1064,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="270060459" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2013 16:06:49 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r99G6n4c024666 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:06:49 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.219]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:06:49 -0500 From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" To: Juliusz Chroboczek Thread-Topic: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released Thread-Index: AQHOxAVJ8WaCmBhuM0iaRO31aC9vuZnrMIGAgAGDAQCAACtiAA== Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:06:48 +0000 Message-ID: <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C11518BA7@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <7ifvsa1sgb.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <7ifvsa1sgb.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.102.41.123] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 09 Oct 2013 16:08:31 -0000 On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> I want to see experimental data that shows whether backwards packet >>> loss with detection of asymmetric neighbours (which is what Henning's >>> draft proposes) does yield results that are good enough in practice. >>> Ideally, I'd like to see a comparison with bidirectional packet loss >>> (which is what ETX/ETT measure). >=20 >> So, I assume that you are *volunteering* to produce this data? >=20 > I'll certainly be glad to work with Henning on producing the suitable > data. (We'll probably be meeting in May at WBM, that could be an > opportunity do work on that.) >=20 >> Stating what you "want to see" is better received when accompanied >> by an offer to help *produce it*. >=20 > Sorry, Stan, but it doesn't work that way. It was Henning's choice to > use a unidirectional loss metric rather than one of the bidirectional > metrics that have been studied in the peer-reviewed literature; and > the MANET group has chosen to go with it. It is the duty of the > proponents to justify their choice, in particular by showing that it > does not behave significantly worse than the better studied metrics. >=20 Sorry, Juliusz, but it *does* work that way, your opinion notwithstanding. = If you're *that* concerned about an aspect of a draft, then how about produ= cing data (or references) that show it to be incorrect? I don't remember se= eing such as of this point. > Or are you suggesting that as far as the IETF MANET group is concerned, > implementations and experimental data are not desirable? =85.ahh, the smell of absurdity...=20 Stan= From teco@inf-net.nl Wed Oct 9 11:09:57 2013 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 4404621E8183 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:09:57 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id re9-S3+JyMU5 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com (mail-bk0-f41.google.com [209.85.214.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A68521F8B07 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id na10so502903bkb.14 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:08:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=htCaLUnax6cmnCy80HxoANAI98gKM85hgSxN8r/VDW8=; b=BCOVtvU3fTzrekk0K5CZthOCUjqiY/xhn6m4WjrM4yHnCUUB2Dk7sjG2xSaMHhj/5i 78yyYjMtH/n6jbk/wSwkalwt5rleeysGyDg0J1qsx2tdYrq1p3OCHi/eGH0Y/WVg4hnQ BNWbTIcpk0ItzVkaCRQVscMMWcP8fGS4/eEe8MaP5FA2RtgrJj0qlHCuy84g1OX1hxok WwJ9jvxFy2H9n0KGlKEhCE9emCqXdWfbw2GA4NHe5xkad9S/zYfo3G/ZACrvO2CpWRuA JZYKVYeb5Nobl/5bLriMwHVoFrm923GbZlfFjLYOo69/swNlG4XGXhIEBrZ8kaM6MUiR O2vA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkP0EO8bbtFtpTCjeMvgg2gfRS2W9IAkMDL1UTi8IM0pPtW8AVltp/aU8PrB0G63Ru7A17+ X-Received: by 10.205.65.17 with SMTP id xk17mr8006605bkb.19.1381342090993; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.87.47.86] ([88.128.80.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jt14sm24599860bkb.0.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: <7ifvsa1sgb.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:08:27 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <7ifvsa1sgb.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> To: Juliusz Chroboczek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" , "Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 09 Oct 2013 18:09:57 -0000 Op 9 okt. 2013, om 15:31 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek = het volgende geschreven: >>> I want to see experimental data that shows whether backwards packet >>> loss with detection of asymmetric neighbours (which is what = Henning's >>> draft proposes) does yield results that are good enough in practice. >>> Ideally, I'd like to see a comparison with bidirectional packet loss >>> (which is what ETX/ETT measure). >=20 >> So, I assume that you are *volunteering* to produce this data? >=20 > I'll certainly be glad to work with Henning on producing the suitable > data. (We'll probably be meeting in May at WBM, that could be an > opportunity do work on that.) >=20 >> Stating what you "want to see" is better received when accompanied >> by an offer to help *produce it*. >=20 > Sorry, Stan, but it doesn't work that way. It was Henning's choice to > use a unidirectional loss metric rather than one of the bidirectional > metrics that have been studied in the peer-reviewed literature; and > the MANET group has chosen to go with it. Why do you think the MANET group has chosen? I think the opposite is true. We recognized metrics for wireless link = are not symmetric. ETX/ETT has to be improved to take this into account. I think Henning proposed a simple straightforward mechanism, without a = need for signaling over the air. But yes, it misses the ACK-loss = component. If we add signaling, I suggest to use an improved ETT in = Henning's proposal with feedback on missed ACKs and not use the neighbor = loss ratio, or, at least use a weight factor for it to adjust for the = smaller ACK frames. Teco=20 > It is the duty of the > proponents to justify their choice, in particular by showing that it > does not behave significantly worse than the better studied metrics. >=20 > Or are you suggesting that as far as the IETF MANET group is = concerned, > implementations and experimental data are not desirable? >=20 > -- Juliusz > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr Wed Oct 9 12:55:32 2013 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 C725921E81A1 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:55:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Eb49riMkNImZ for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FF521E819E for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/46573) with ESMTP id r99Jt5gF027904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:55:05 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/46573) with ESMTP id r99Jt5Qr014798; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:55:05 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018C15981B; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:55:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id 5rs_GVrpmV7A; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:55:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ijon.pps.jussieu.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D72A5980E; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:55:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ijon.pps.jussieu.fr) by ijon.pps.jussieu.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VTzqi-00019B-9n; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:55:12 +0200 Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:55:12 +0200 Message-ID: <87r4budxsv.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" In-Reply-To: <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C11518BA7@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <7ifvsa1sgb.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C11518BA7@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:55:05 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:55:05 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5255B499.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5255B499.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5255B499.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5255B499.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5255B499.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5255B499.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 09 Oct 2013 19:55:32 -0000 >> It is the duty of the proponents to justify their choice, in >> particular by showing that it does not behave significantly worse >> than the better studied metrics. > If you're *that* concerned about an aspect of a draft, then how > about producing data (or references) that show it to be incorrect? As I've mentioned in a previous mail, my intuition fully agrees with Henning's -- I'm pretty confident that Henning's metric works almost as well as ETT. However, while both Henning and I have spent significant amounts of our lives staring at packet loss figures in mesh networks, all we have at this time is the intuition of two people. Hard data that confirms our intuitions would certainly be a good thing to have -- and, I'd argue, a prerequisite to promoting Henning's draft to RFC. -- Juliusz From sratliff@cisco.com Wed Oct 9 13:11:03 2013 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 9B87B11E80E4 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:11:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IMIiJ0kEIJ4G for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:10:57 -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 9298621F9F51 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:10:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1156; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381349456; x=1382559056; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=dzo02yL0c0+/YEaHHrWsCisdfyJDrBnMLYisIhqIzv8=; b=P8ifgDAopBz8Oa8gmNBAj1IsG5rYrg1sl7Z7s9nyCmzbSLNgVFS1A4ub hFeZHDAUntenFQq7Hd5QASEbpl4TH93I2w5oH4nLzzJWlDE75YJqyq88f zjfsnIE+4pFtxOTAo4XQ4SqFpvHoLUeWXsg1kRe5Gxufty6hwOfEBGKaF M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiwFAAu3VVKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagweBCsE3gR8WdIIlAQEBAwEdHT8QAgEIDhQUEDIlAgQOBQiHeAa5AY4MgQYCMQeDH4EEA6oEgySBcTk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1066,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="270181326" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2013 20:10:48 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r99KAj4D005444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:10:45 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.219]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:10:45 -0500 From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" To: Juliusz Chroboczek Thread-Topic: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released Thread-Index: AQHOxAVJ8WaCmBhuM0iaRO31aC9vuZnrMIGAgAGDAQCAACtiAIAAP9AAgAAEVoA= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:10:44 +0000 Message-ID: <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C11519474@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <7ifvsa1sgb.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C11518BA7@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <87r4budxsv.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <87r4budxsv.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.102.41.123] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4AC0D7C2B58A4D4EA5756443FCC9D406@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 09 Oct 2013 20:11:03 -0000 On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> It is the duty of the proponents to justify their choice, in >>> particular by showing that it does not behave significantly worse >>> than the better studied metrics. >=20 >> If you're *that* concerned about an aspect of a draft, then how >> about producing data (or references) that show it to be incorrect? >=20 > As I've mentioned in a previous mail, my intuition fully agrees with > Henning's -- I'm pretty confident that Henning's metric works almost > as well as ETT. >=20 > However, while both Henning and I have spent significant amounts of > our lives staring at packet loss figures in mesh networks, all we have > at this time is the intuition of two people. Hard data that confirms > our intuitions would certainly be a good thing to have -- and, I'd > argue, a prerequisite to promoting Henning's draft to RFC. Then perhaps the issue here is that you and I are in "violent agreement" - = data is a good thing. All I'm saying is, in addition to calling for it, let= 's all think about how we can help produce it.=20 Stan From jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr Wed Oct 9 14:12:18 2013 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 D0C7721E81BD for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:12:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e8rh45UTf+or for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A56221E81B9 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/46573) with ESMTP id r99LC8V2027479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:12:08 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/46573) with ESMTP id r99LC8eF005328; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:12:08 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7E05981F; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:12:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id 9qAPjALrn8QM; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:12:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ijon.pps.jussieu.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A2D85981E; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:12:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ijon.pps.jussieu.fr) by ijon.pps.jussieu.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VU13I-0001B8-4g; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:12:16 +0200 Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:12:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87a9iidu8f.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" In-Reply-To: <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C11519474@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <7ifvsa1sgb.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C11518BA7@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <87r4budxsv.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C11519474@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:12:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:12:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5255C6A8.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5255C6A8.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5255C6A8.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5255C6A8.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5255C6A8.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5255C6A8.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 09 Oct 2013 21:12:18 -0000 >> Hard data that confirms our intuitions would certainly be a good >> thing to have -- and, I'd argue, a prerequisite to promoting >> Henning's draft to RFC. > Then perhaps the issue here is that you and I are in "violent > agreement" - data is a good thing. I may have misunderstood, but I still think we have different opinions. You appear to consider hard data as a mere luxury -- a nice thing to have --, while I happen to believe it's a necessity. > All I'm saying is, in addition to calling for it, let's all think > about how we can help produce it. Yes. I have no doubts about Henning's scientific integrity, and I'll be glad to work with him on setting up a suitable experiment. -- Juliusz From sratliff@cisco.com Wed Oct 9 18:47:13 2013 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 B0BB921F9473 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:47:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZrU-6zahrdk for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99D421E8255 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:47:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=890; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381369622; x=1382579222; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=iRVS0b9AJLKYWrXnerSsPa8+8umoGm4r0dIuwxrKofU=; b=SROLDMEo+z97v2pgM1SSolx4jgcGJ9M1Oo73lsQrFbZ8fc0It9azQSo4 Epz++jhkkUsMRsnjVlz/94dBiG7hIZ2o8J7t/sJ6zyFi4Ss0bLweVv9zP UKPyn8TulRtvH86CYZvQmu8AJNhKeAh5x+bmxWZeNQigVw65j04NCxe2G M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai4FAJwGVlKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABagweBCsEqgSEWdIIlAQEBAwEdHT8QAgEIDhQUEDIlAgQOBQiHeAa5MY8SAjEHgx+BBAOqBIMkgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1068,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="270283233" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2013 01:46:52 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9A1kqNd004010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:46:52 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.219]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:46:51 -0500 From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" To: Juliusz Chroboczek Thread-Topic: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released Thread-Index: AQHOxAVJ8WaCmBhuM0iaRO31aC9vuZnrMIGAgAGDAQCAACtiAIAAP9AAgAAEVoCAABEzAIAATLeA Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:46:51 +0000 Message-ID: <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C1151960F@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> References: <52396259.3010304@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <523AE1E3.4070803@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <8738onv0oj.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <9EDCC6C2-F222-45EB-BD74-3E95F2518FC2@inf-net.nl> <7izjqkf82w.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C115175D5@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <7ifvsa1sgb.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C11518BA7@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <87r4budxsv.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <2ED1D3801ACAAB459FDB4EAC9EAD090C11519474@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <87a9iidu8f.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <87a9iidu8f.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.179.212] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4E7C9AC3A1EF8E4FA1EDADD3FCE5F09D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [manet] New revision of OLSRv2 metric draft released 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, 10 Oct 2013 01:47:13 -0000 On Oct 9, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> Hard data that confirms our intuitions would certainly be a good >>> thing to have -- and, I'd argue, a prerequisite to promoting >>> Henning's draft to RFC. >=20 >> Then perhaps the issue here is that you and I are in "violent >> agreement" - data is a good thing. >=20 > I may have misunderstood, but I still think we have different > opinions. You appear to consider hard data as a mere luxury -- a nice > thing to have --, while I happen to believe it's a necessity. You're dead wrong. Stan >=20 >> All I'm saying is, in addition to calling for it, let's all think >> about how we can help produce it. >=20 > Yes. I have no doubts about Henning's scientific integrity, and I'll > be glad to work with him on setting up a suitable experiment. >=20 > -- Juliusz From ulrich@herberg.name Fri Oct 11 17:34:33 2013 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 80BE811E80F5 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:34:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UeRvwB-+NWaD for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-x235.google.com (mail-vc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7803721E8095 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id id10so2811772vcb.26 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:34:31 -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=mx/LNeMM+GMxwmQNNXCqGxqKQ0cCDdbSNYwAq1xIKpI=; b=oT8Ssg2UZH/rv6RMchfOT5v3fDBKh1eiM9lBhI7aONB8YzaibyeaZug1LIYIhqQXDc +4wwmhl+cVxrAzjvRRjt6kSkTppvXXCHEAtJj84Oydve7neDAUqbfG4ukDv7PansfWuL 60992Ih4WsUx+OtQ/2b+XeBbjTKR8Nc5iBNLc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=mx/LNeMM+GMxwmQNNXCqGxqKQ0cCDdbSNYwAq1xIKpI=; b=fSMb7aBBT7Oq74xmMtReD1Z5qasBchoZbm+RUrGx7LVlz2OYfeJMhCBJ0xN9mdy/rZ XgFM7hqAvKSWHr863HEJsjbikuS0tH2h6Q3i3DJsJs8UFngRrBId8hOEheeYYW5zXq9q pTsYUl+6sEaz/m4uTPqOy15HccSt0PJG3MfzzgJwj89r0nTUK/wenL4YdpQeBYq40tC4 BgDp1Cu6AQuw7BKHSJtMCwhY5SKk5LIlf4e6rf2raJq8eV58ZpDM/Cc5ld31JYK32Y84 2u3j21fMNg7ODAh6KhruVDIRnLzWeIVeNsjdX8YU4cypyVqAWF7jETUSkhOKsI2MzA4+ o0VQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmwNItZ6oPHJilDmSbtNAPZg8a3a9guMrhFnlT+nVVKYHD8qqzT9110ac+roPyFR/vLpuYB MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.169.203 with SMTP id a11mr19580544vcz.26.1381538071076; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:34:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [manet] Submit slot requests for MANET 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: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:34:33 -0000 If you want to present during the MANET meeting in Vancouver, please post a request to the chairs or on the list soon. We have a two-hour slot this time. Thanks Ulrich From ulrich@herberg.name Sun Oct 20 17:44:35 2013 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 4DC3D11E82F5 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:44:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6sKIVElge3Ya for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x22d.google.com (mail-vb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CF911E8377 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id e15so3386803vbg.4 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:44:30 -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=aSjc96DGhCRkQh9v4akt+FOzgjzFgZSM0VHyC46uPKA=; b=qWbvNvBsE68PCEO26IVWsIgJfJ+TP/2V/O9GUeZtRJ61xnWW1KJvFlR2J4mMn4tlGn gUfWw84PY+wyFUPQ+4w/Y9Qb48HmRKADUy9/xcdJSM3XfIPS6XJS1wXJeVXT9BzwdBLY WZ1MnW2t/J57Y3FeUTW8iX4XtNdhosPSMCq3E= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=aSjc96DGhCRkQh9v4akt+FOzgjzFgZSM0VHyC46uPKA=; b=G12GYuYGokA97z0BBjPE8+ws9NO7yeuyZCvsPZlQTFb9hfrivX1SnnsrF42HWF3CqF FEKHCiPWFgsAb2mRGzH0a7v7cYQ0qlle8auFoeCzhz3X4u7XFwrj8mbeWBJY9kt7dzNV hdlO/F7yjO0xWb0w+c91QKlzQhocvdLrb5NEkeppJxKd76uKXRWb4VvPesM4xQ+h4l7f /nGqER5nlQpKM70l69zsrlJFzlL4M7GLQ+CCkQKk7N2B+bBGxqOT6RCH/o3cHKNJKPIh xCsFLaijT7fJmFPsl8PG7v0AEUKDQjAiij4Weged12c7hd0eacazbSCBv/2GkUG1p7fd tqfA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnWd2WxUdG9ceXg5zF9DQyC80WFLyDih5EuFgmqDu3Y+vmommunaZppkLJFx8wr8caQ5DTR MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.86.69 with SMTP id r5mr9389926vcl.9.1382316270627; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:44:30 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [manet] Management of MANETs (draft-nguyen-manet-management) 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, 21 Oct 2013 00:44:35 -0000 Hi, at the last IETF, I asked for help from the WG for the draft in the subject of this email. I have received zero replies. Does it mean the WG is not interested in producing such a draft? I am willing to put in the editorial effort (and I think the same is true for all the coauthors), but without technical input how you manage MANETs, we won't be able to write a good draft. This email could serve as a starting point for discussion on the topic. Specifically, I am interested in a few questions, e.g.: - Which kind of MANETs do people manage (use cases / topologies)? - What kind of management information is sent/received from MANET routers? - Which protocols are used to manage them? - What are potential issues with management of MANETs? - What is different from classic Internet router management? Thanks Ulrich From jpmacker@gmail.com Tue Oct 22 10:41:51 2013 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 496D411E8200 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:41:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z7NySoqX82ZT for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com (mail-qc0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E05911E81E3 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id e9so4647564qcy.39 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:41:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date :to:mime-version; bh=PU2vxhpGTF1OVzph4/GsmpuVTILF9Pegrk1qRPjsZLE=; b=EYtC9iELMUcZhIJLAndJ91WQbmab/ll3r8R52d9RyAc6UW80A/QdV8h5Tddl2jFopn BZPQiv7AVXXAmOdDAsEO1IYBdYuFCbLxO+lPtWkoBCzSS/1XIrsZ/T58Y7jXWzuuNilr ir0sN0NRCBN7M9LbVdwq5OoF0KvVTyf0qLo+aUklbI3ZZ/3SE34TcxF5fVJCfID/4lWT 3FGsLZ4d9mth85edKrsUFaSkroxhzYUvWMAoE8ljzFpAoTiUA+W2UA+nHRN245TZC0K7 sa5H049mcyWYuuRwpfEVHflgyaM4cuGYNRYmg1NUjSze57eKtXUqoNCz/5tTrPzWLBu3 PY4w== X-Received: by 10.224.131.133 with SMTP id x5mr30789234qas.70.1382463710069; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vpn217206.nrl.navy.mil (vpn217206.nrl.navy.mil. [132.250.217.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i4sm52011098qan.0.2013.10.22.10.41.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Macker Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2C07DC9E-BD09-4822-852A-D763B8A8CB5E@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:41:51 -0400 To: "manet@ietf.org List" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: [manet] Draft manet agenda posted 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, 22 Oct 2013 17:41:51 -0000 All: Draft manet agenda has been posted. Present working document status are scheduled. Presenters please confirm = with Ulrich, Stan, and myself and provide early copies of briefs when = you can. I would like to request a brief out from DLEP design team findings. = Based upon the schedule we are overdue for some feedback to the WG = regarding findings, issues discussed/proposed decisions,etc. Claudiu Danilov (Boeing) is planning on presenting some work that has = extended SMF to provide more adaptive group-based multicast operations. = If others have issues they would like discussed please bring them up. Regards, Joe From yi.jiazi@gmail.com Tue Oct 22 11:19:37 2013 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 E0C8611E8218 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OFxJ70SCZncy for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380DC11E8215 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id u57so8528238wes.18 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:19:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=gC/hbWha/1+O/8x+Of+vpAZ4SrFPksrx4lWntKr1Ehg=; b=yIilDSOV+CkaF8m/xXAvWYNVx59lZmCp/VjV50CrKnCP8pfTpbxfCCIlTKBftCUTnO loXFv5i7sQGhO5P6rZ/yHdVfy5rpoDT4r50h7n0gw1pkrUGIO6ZyLBxun2OTnKM4y+YL cBEJLu+PCIX4gdv1rVU3EpIwK/MS5WmKVKTh4nWQhnEB5fbUXSt+be4Pl1A5706tWC+O VBvuejE2PcJO3VuYpRmoT5wZvomPqk0tL0DxpUXd8q0ZR6u3sudMbwU7QIOZz0ActzSF GOiUpY9rE3Qdvb1KKxcrxchk8wKSO67pIqDCwqeFdqq8bdWW4MHGfh9OZWlXS/QUN/P7 FWsg== X-Received: by 10.180.98.194 with SMTP id ek2mr15667756wib.15.1382465976357; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jy-mac-pro.home (128-79-35-43.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr. [128.79.35.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dq11sm8848544wid.3.2013.10.22.11.19.35 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Jiazi Yi In-Reply-To: <2C07DC9E-BD09-4822-852A-D763B8A8CB5E@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:19:34 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1527138D-A7B7-400E-A809-795B6DC97589@gmail.com> References: <2C07DC9E-BD09-4822-852A-D763B8A8CB5E@gmail.com> To: Joe Macker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "manet@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [manet] Draft manet agenda posted 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, 22 Oct 2013 18:19:38 -0000 Hi,=20 I would like to request a 10-minute slot for = draft-yi-manet-reactive-jitter (Sorry for the delay). The link is = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yi-manet-reactive-jitter/=20 It's a improved jitter mechanism for route request flooding in reactive = protocols (AODV, DSR, LOADng, etc...). The proposed "window" jitter = could decrease routing overhead during route discovery, and help finding = the optimum routes in the network.=20 Thomas Clausen will present this draft.=20 regards Jiazi On Oct 22, 2013, at 19:41 , Joe Macker wrote: > All: >=20 > Draft manet agenda has been posted. >=20 > Present working document status are scheduled. Presenters please = confirm with Ulrich, Stan, and myself and provide early copies of briefs = when you can. >=20 > I would like to request a brief out from DLEP design team findings. = Based upon the schedule we are overdue for some feedback to the WG = regarding findings, issues discussed/proposed decisions,etc. >=20 > Claudiu Danilov (Boeing) is planning on presenting some work that has = extended SMF to provide more adaptive group-based multicast operations. = If others have issues they would like discussed please bring them up. >=20 > Regards, > Joe >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From john.dowdell@cassidian.com Thu Oct 24 09:09:35 2013 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 3D39811E83A8 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:09:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.716 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.131, BAYES_40=-0.185, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qDXVSQXPvbO7 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-dotnet4.eads.net (mail-dotnet4.eads.net [193.56.40.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C59311E83BD for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown (HELO fr-gate1.mailhub.intra.corp) ([53.154.16.33]) by mail-dotnet4.eads.net with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2013 18:02:56 +0200 Received: from f8562vs5.main.fr.ds.corp ([10.37.8.22]) by fr-gate1.mailhub.intra.corp with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.7381); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:02:28 +0200 Received: from f8562vs4.main.fr.ds.corp ([10.37.8.28]) by f8562vs5.main.fr.ds.corp with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:02:28 +0200 Received: from SUCNPTEXC01.com.ad.uk.ds.corp ([10.80.73.70]) by f8562vs4.main.fr.ds.corp with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:02:28 +0200 Received: from SUCNPTEXM02.COM.AD.UK.DS.CORP ([fe80::c1e:1167:8c94:a12e]) by SUCNPTEXC01.com.ad.uk.ds.corp ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:02:28 +0100 From: "Dowdell, John" To: Joe Macker , "manet@ietf.org List" Thread-Topic: [manet] Draft manet agenda posted Thread-Index: AQHOz04kqwgI1qv0TU29SoVwESXLVZoEBddQ Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:02:27 +0000 Message-ID: <603F5FD847B5174CBDA37A9DC00532FB0B4E32C5@SUCNPTEXM02.com.ad.uk.ds.corp> References: <32ef9c55-f061-44e4-b374-97683d35bb34@SUCNPTEXC01.COM.AD.UK.DS.CORP> In-Reply-To: <32ef9c55-f061-44e4-b374-97683d35bb34@SUCNPTEXC01.COM.AD.UK.DS.CORP> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.80.23.54] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Oct 2013 16:02:28.0565 (UTC) FILETIME=[7045B850:01CED0D2] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.4194-6.500.1024-20242.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--19.405300-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Subject: Re: [manet] Draft manet agenda posted 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, 24 Oct 2013 16:09:35 -0000 Joe I will compile some feedback for the DLEP group. Stan is otherwise engaged = right now. DLEPers, I will post on our own list for contributions if that is ok with y= ou all. John > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Joe Macker > Sent: 22 October 2013 18:42 > To: manet@ietf.org List > Subject: [manet] Draft manet agenda posted > > All: > > Draft manet agenda has been posted. > > Present working document status are scheduled. Presenters please > confirm with Ulrich, Stan, and myself and provide early copies of > briefs when you can. > > I would like to request a brief out from DLEP design team findings. > Based upon the schedule we are overdue for some feedback to the WG > regarding findings, issues discussed/proposed decisions,etc. > > Claudiu Danilov (Boeing) is planning on presenting some work that has > extended SMF to provide more adaptive group-based multicast operations. > If others have issues they would like discussed please bring them up. > > Regards, > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet The information contained within this e-mail and any files attached to this= e-mail is private and in addition may include commercially sensitive infor= mation. The contents of this e-mail are for the intended recipient only and= therefore if you wish to disclose the information contained within this e-= mail or attached files, please contact the sender prior to any such disclos= ure. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dist= ribution is prohibited. Please also contact the sender and inform them of t= he error and delete the e-mail, including any attached files from your syst= em. Cassidian Limited, Registered Office : Quadrant House, Celtic Springs, = Coedkernew, Newport, NP10 8FZ Company No: 04191036 http://www.cassidian.com From ulrich@herberg.name Fri Oct 25 23:41:32 2013 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 A60B511E827E for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:41:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jeMkdplnLbWO for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x236.google.com (mail-vb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD42611E826C for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id q12so3256716vbe.27 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:41:30 -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=IXDkboY6e0tPeAXGWeHBAIp6a4KkbiRffjeN8TloVKI=; b=Fk3i4sI3/JPqNb+vDcMefKR9Iyn0a1cOuz07fufEfZpHV2CZZYuUMHFSlB1Kn3OG2P E1xMXZxp2a/KzY6jY1T9C017o0PTuvK1Kphb7mZT1t4ZUBXJszBrCNJCMF49V9gQwWdY idKe24/CiSZ3ygK6yh6q0cKE0Tk9q0qvISI8g= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=IXDkboY6e0tPeAXGWeHBAIp6a4KkbiRffjeN8TloVKI=; b=PlUKPJJ+Fxm0xEL4yoUSs9hMILfs2bc2s80aXV5w6yPaWxS13H91EoPeRfPpdhW6+8 z8v+NKwMmRTu8ULxPlyyanws6gIkuQUzx+hV9jdepsK8WUhpoCClA2Vy/jDm+NAxpz0M 9T9sAeVGzi9qApFxNC7DijFKfzDqPKfEerVNmQmc3EyZrOQxI+VXoygbog4nBuFnitPD N5jIHuzv/euW5mtMKnnJ6zuluMnbCwRl3ax9eDdXYPNqmShivsgrlLAeyG8F/deuW+zG lH5P+8Sd+T50HhERw2qJyaKS23v6KPVn3aCQbIFvwmiDjLrFKHFMHBAFuhLFsDPJ7ohd S4UQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQ4zIhSa04vwAn+tv6oielJghE5oP3kscivTR+FsLU04QZ34PXfvaHk3HLvcVU1kmglrm2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.69.212 with SMTP id a20mr6668114vcj.10.1382769689964; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:41:29 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [manet] Slides please 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: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 06:41:32 -0000 All presenters, send me your slides no later than Monday evening (11/4) of the IETF. Please include slide numbers on each slide (makes it easier for remote participants). Thanks Ulrich From geoff.ietf@mulligan.com Tue Oct 29 20:17:55 2013 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 98B2811E81CD for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:17:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SCo-1UCzgcHL for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:17:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.coslabs.com (mail.coslabs.com [199.233.92.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AB211E80E0 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (pool-173-73-43-106.washdc.fios.verizon.net [173.73.43.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E19B5F8A3 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:17:36 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <52707A50.8020602@mulligan.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:17:36 -0600 From: Geoff Mulligan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Smart America Challenge Briefing and Discussion 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, 30 Oct 2013 03:17:55 -0000 Sokwoo Rhee and I (Cyber Physical Systems Presidential Innovation Fellows) are scheduling a meeting to discuss the PIF program (overall) and our Smart America Challenge, which was launched today, (www.nist.gov/el/smartamerica.cfm orwww.smartamerica.org) more specifically. I think that many CPS test beds would be using various types of MANETs (including LLNs) for device interconnection. We are very interested in reaching out to IETFers working on CPS (CPS is related to the IoT but with a bent toward stronger control) to find broad participation in our upcoming (free) workshop. We are planning to hold the meeting Monday evening from 7:30pm to 9pm. We need to get a head count, so please reply to me if you would like to attend. Thanks, Geoff From geoff.ietf@mulligan.com Wed Oct 30 09:12:51 2013 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 4B63621E80D9 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:12:51 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OuXeAGxhU3Do for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.coslabs.com (mail.coslabs.com [199.233.92.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD7A21E8115 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.43.8] (11.sub-70-192-217.myvzw.com [70.192.217.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0ACB95F8E7 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:12:33 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <52712FF0.4090206@mulligan.com> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:12:32 -0600 From: Geoff Mulligan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [manet] Smart America meeting @ IETF88 on Monday Nov 4 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, 30 Oct 2013 16:12:51 -0000 It was pointed out to me that I didn't specify what Monday and where. I guess with the upcoming meeting I was a bit myopic. To reiterate, Sokwoo and I have launched our PIF CPS project and we are trying to gather as many good ideas and people as possible. Part of the foundation of a scalable CPS is a "high confidence network" and it is our belief that this must be built on open standards such as IP so this is why we are coming to the IETF. We feel that MANETs are a vital component of many CPS and hope to hear what technologies are currently depolyed that could be a part of this project. Please read more at www.smartamerica.org. So the meeting is currently planned for Monday November 4 from 7:30pm US/Pacific (0300 UTC - I think) until 9:00pm US/Pacific (0500 UTC - I hope). Again - please reply to me directly if you plan to attend so that we can size the room accordingly. Thanks, Geoff From jpmacker@gmail.com Wed Oct 30 09:57:40 2013 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 BC26521F9E02 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:57:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.933 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O7lx0rvW5DvQ for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9C811E8126 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id q8so1445199lbi.33 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:56:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=93qZiBg9CbZraByGN20Vd99Vyl+ihltB1nWMtSJWvvE=; b=jbDf2WIgGkAgTP5S4ihLp3CfM5XzqWgxrTDs2smD9XZ85V7ogGg+gtKFVSWahkFGCo KCsWHvYHTET9zLDGy9UeTipcL9KYnAL99ldhUbBHSH/5Pk8mQ0gC9yn+8vo6t4j3fqKb HpG46gk0QcTyGVxutniVgszfo1lvVZ5dLj4nrIUPAybcrwrRvRmG9PT32PERzNLcfE4m z5fMdYnAAbmzfU9M9e+oXFan0pESubZ4I7eFhlwFWaiorT80sF5qYm6VVt+mNNoQmwsF 4A2SE6QcE0HMsdfRg4KQd+49uep72r5eh2eOlQQ7ehu66O8moAY1M2yyROy5wv0d/L5X l4xg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.130.138 with SMTP id oe10mr3994535lbb.1.1383152176014; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.218.33 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:56:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <52712FF0.4090206@mulligan.com> References: <52712FF0.4090206@mulligan.com> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:56:15 -0400 Message-ID: From: Joseph Macker To: Geoff Mulligan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a88da1f2bde04e9f8368d Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] Smart America meeting @ IETF88 on Monday Nov 4 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, 30 Oct 2013 16:57:40 -0000 --047d7b3a88da1f2bde04e9f8368d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Geoff: I regret I have to delay my arrival until MOnday evening. I am hoping other interesting folks can attend. -Joe On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Geoff Mulligan wrote: > It was pointed out to me that I didn't specify what Monday and where. I > guess with the upcoming meeting I was a bit myopic. > > To reiterate, Sokwoo and I have launched our PIF CPS project and we are > trying to gather as many good ideas and people as possible. Part of the > foundation of a scalable CPS is a "high confidence network" and it is our > belief that this must be built on open standards such as IP so this is why > we are coming to the IETF. > > We feel that MANETs are a vital component of many CPS and hope to hear > what technologies are currently depolyed that could be a part of this > project. > > Please read more at www.smartamerica.org. > > So the meeting is currently planned for Monday November 4 from 7:30pm > US/Pacific (0300 UTC - I think) until 9:00pm US/Pacific (0500 UTC - I hope). > > Again - please reply to me directly if you plan to attend so that we can > size the room accordingly. > > Thanks, > Geoff > > ______________________________**_________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/manet > --047d7b3a88da1f2bde04e9f8368d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Geoff:
I regret I have to delay my= arrival until MOnday evening.
I am hoping other interesting folks= can attend.

-Joe


=
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Geoff Mulligan <geoff.ietf@mulliga= n.com> wrote:
It was pointed out to me that I didn't specify what Monday and where. = =A0I guess with the upcoming meeting I was a bit myopic.

To reiterate, Sokwoo and I have launched our PIF CPS project and we are try= ing to gather as many good ideas and people as possible. Part of the founda= tion of a scalable CPS is a "high confidence network" and it is o= ur belief that this must be built on open standards such as IP so this is w= hy we are coming to the IETF.

We feel that MANETs are a vital component of many CPS and hope to hear what= technologies are currently depolyed that could be a part of this project.<= br>
Please read more at www.smartamerica.org.

So the meeting is currently planned for Monday November 4 from 7:30pm US/Pa= cific (0300 UTC - I think) until 9:00pm US/Pacific (0500 UTC - I hope).

Again - please reply to me directly if you plan to attend so that we can si= ze the room accordingly.

=A0 =A0 Thanks,
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Geoff

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

--047d7b3a88da1f2bde04e9f8368d-- From hasanfarooq7@gmail.com Wed Oct 30 19:56:51 2013 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 8A18111E82FD for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:56:51 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xIObSc2V-Yxr for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x234.google.com (mail-vb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC85D21E80AF for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f52.google.com with SMTP id f13so1734616vbg.11 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:56:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=mjSz2YyD/jatdSA5I/5Eg8uZ26+6E9RN1eQKCpky+Rg=; b=SU0YCUKrqcF+ePW/Kf9rQbb5+7ls2WvHq5aUgK5nedLoKQswGCt/Jv0MAxg9PXDTev +50rXR6mDp/8yO2HlBvEhkYozBkA0etOFfBVfVpXAVP7E4C5JFUpgEHlK6N6ET5DXIPs 8X5yoOvE7FsY8NGxFRGjkE+wLc5+Q5t+FugG50htqYD98hancrN6pmRVL2f2cjFHgWH8 /Ux6FNGPYBmg8liqeTCSZD91I5DkblrIIMhPPiIvCBHAk7OfP7pZwDYj9Z+C9gxrlGxT upz6n5QkWFHTwkpg94sLaa+pVpv5b3BQ8Ap/CZdrwYf4plFS+sBdNfZttjPVDZYE6C55 YZ/Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.255.71 with SMTP id ao7mr458917ved.16.1383188204446; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.30.42 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:56:44 +0800 Message-ID: From: Hasan Farooq To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0d1b495740c04ea00992c Subject: [manet] Scope of Ad-hoc Protocols (MANETS) in Smart Grid Netwoks 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, 31 Oct 2013 02:56:51 -0000 --047d7bf0d1b495740c04ea00992c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear MANET Fellows, I wanted to ask what is the scope and possibility of using Ad-hoc routing protocols (e.g. AODV, OLSR etc) for smart mart metering communication network. Having worked on this (simulation and implementation), I see numerous possibilities and application of MANET routing protocols in ad-hoc implementation of smart metering nodes. I just want to know the point of view of other MANET WG fellows. -- Thanks and Regards, ** *Hasan Farooq* Department of CIS Universiti Teknologi Petronas Malaysia H/P:+60 10 2900535 --047d7bf0d1b495740c04ea00992c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear = MANET Fellows,
I wanted to as= k what is the scope and possibility of using Ad-hoc routing protocols (e.g.= AODV, OLSR etc) for smart mart metering communication network. Having work= ed on this (simulation and implementation), I see numerous possibilities an= d application of MANET routing protocols in ad-hoc implementation of smart = metering nodes. I just want to know the point of view of other MANET WG fel= lows.

--
Thanks and Regards,
=A0
Hasan Farooq
Department of CIS
Universiti Teknologi Petronas<= /div>
Malaysia
H/P:+60 10 2900535<= /font>
--047d7bf0d1b495740c04ea00992c-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Thu Oct 31 06:15:53 2013 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 19E2511E815A for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:15:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R4KHEkOcFckS for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-x236.google.com (mail-pb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0CC511E80FA for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ro8so2824309pbb.27 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:15:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=07YhSZHIi0uvTxnJUi0LIecGYVvou4HLpP3iUHhjR+0=; b=SoTPDejWcy9xyAP1xUnnYnMVa0yroEs+yOWiD007PUGTLm72GpQWvDSKgLuqyNFnXq lBsTAXSdxuaaUbSmhVRax0ZOVu6welCtmYlkcuQM4jLAPE5KSBgVes6n4GAzabtvK7qL wM1QQM5vPc5tSkchxkbfT62NoIP3X4pG+aPW98mUktn5fn8cweB9Y6iTth9k5TJJnZJr aUmmmvZPZipXzsae3BozaGDEQdIxqK+VxJxy0vFb5mVSPVpeME/09nJSNmavDVsAwq3s ztpjhVTlv9RFJRMCtmGK2jOMiVTacEl5234lAgWUAzcw/K+UvZLwn8aWUlZ7MuztV082 /izQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.166.3 with SMTP id zc3mr1903666pbb.95.1383225351775; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.69.8.5 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:15:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:15:51 +0000 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Hasan Farooq Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacb704bcacde04ea093f3b Cc: manet Subject: Re: [manet] Scope of Ad-hoc Protocols (MANETS) in Smart Grid Netwoks 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, 31 Oct 2013 13:15:53 -0000 --047d7bacb704bcacde04ea093f3b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Hasan, My point of view, there are good results of using RPL, AODVv2 and OLSRv2 for that network. In the past I argued that IETF documents related to OLSR or AODV should mention use cases or applicabilities but seems not much details the group given/discussed in those documents. You may start a new draft related to your question and analyse the use cases for AODV and OLSR in that network. That effort will open more discussions. Salam AB On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Hasan Farooq wrote: > Dear MANET Fellows, > > I wanted to ask what is the scope and possibility of using Ad-hoc routing > protocols (e.g. AODV, OLSR etc) for smart mart metering communication > network. Having worked on this (simulation and implementation), I see > numerous possibilities and application of MANET routing protocols in ad-hoc > implementation of smart metering nodes. I just want to know the point of > view of other MANET WG fellows. > > -- > Thanks and Regards, > ** > *Hasan Farooq* > Department of CIS > Universiti Teknologi Petronas > Malaysia > H/P:+60 10 2900535 > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > --047d7bacb704bcacde04ea093f3b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Hasan,
=A0
My point of view,= there are=A0good results of using RPL, AODVv2 and OLSRv2 for that network.= =A0In the past I argued that=A0IETF documents related to=A0OLSR or AODV sho= uld=A0mention use cases or applicabilities but seems not much details the g= roup given/discussed in=A0those documents. You may start a new draft relate= d to your question and analyse the use cases for AODV and OLSR in that netw= ork. That effort will open more discussions.
=A0
Salam
AB


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Hasan = Farooq <hasanfarooq7@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear MANET Fellows,

I wanted to ask what is the scope and possibility of using Ad-hoc routing p= rotocols (e.g. AODV, OLSR etc) for smart mart metering communication networ= k. Having worked on this (simulation and implementation), I see numerous po= ssibilities and application of MANET routing protocols in ad-hoc implementa= tion of smart metering nodes. I just want to know the point of view of othe= r MANET WG fellows.

--
Thanks and Regards,
=A0
Hasan Farooq
Department of CIS
Universiti Teknologi Petronas<= /div>
Malaysia

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


--047d7bacb704bcacde04ea093f3b--