I think that supporting both UDP and an IP protocol number would make ensuring interoperability more difficult. If I hear from the WG that there is a leaning toward leaving UDP and switching to an IP protocol number, then we can consider it. As of today, I have not heard enough support for this change. Ian Chakeres On 8/9/07, Teco Boot <teco@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ian wrote: > > Before you voiced your suggestion to allocate an IP protocol number, > > the issue has never arisen. Unless there is WG support to allocate an > > IP protocol number, I do not think it will be allocated. > > > [Teco] > I did rise this question before, see below. > Maybe the issue is not that important; UDP overhead is 8 octets, brings > checksum and could take advantage of header compression for UDP. But using a > native IP protocol is more in line with other IETF routing protocols. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Teco Boot [mailto:teco@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: woensdag 25 april 2007 13:28 > To: 'Ian Chakeres' > Cc: manet@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [manet] manet-iana WG Last Call: site-local address and UDP only > > Hi Ian, > > You request a site-local multicast address. I cannot find any usage of it in > the current I-Ds. Do we need this? Or always perform hop-by-hop forwarding > using a link-local address? I think the latter is used by OLSRv2 and DYMO > protocols, but I can miss something. > > You also do not request an IP protocol number. Maybe I missed a discussion > before and the outcome could be using UDP only, (may be TCP also). I cannot > find any reference. Using UDP checksum is a reason. > > Regards, Teco > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > Regarding packetbb IANA considerations and other MANET WG protocols > > additional IANA needs they are addressed in their documents. For > > example, see packetbb's IANA section. > > > > Ian > > > > On 8/9/07, Bo Berry <bberry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Given that the WG is working to define two standards > > > - Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP) > > > - Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP) > > > that may or may not converge, do we need to allocate > > > two port numbers so these protocols can co-exist? > > > > > > There has also been a suggestion to allocate an IP protocol > > > number for a MANET routing protocol. Should this be > > > included in this draft? > > > > > > The various MANET protocols are moving to packetbb which > > > will require the definition of several/many TLV identifiers. > > > Where are these type IDs going to be allocated and tracked? > > > If in the separate protocol drafts, is there a potential > > > problem with overlap if IDs? If so, perhaps the MANET > > > type IDs should be defined here. > > > > > > draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-08 currently reserves IDs > > > "Message type 0 MUST NOT be allocated because a zero-octet signifies > > a > > > packet header and zero-octets are used for padding. Message types 1 > > > to 4 are reserved because they are used by OLSR [4], which uses a > > > compatible packet/message header format." > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > -Bo > > > > > > > > > > > > The IESG wrote: > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG > > > > (manet) to consider the following document: > > > > > > > > - 'Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Allocations for the > > > > Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANET) Working Group ' > > > > <draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt> as a 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2007-08-18. Exceptionally, > > > > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please > > > > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15 > > 731&rfc_flag=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > manet mailing list > > > > manet@xxxxxxxx > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > manet mailing list > > > manet@xxxxxxxx > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf