Ian Chakeres wrote: > Comments inline. > > On 8/10/07, Bo Berry <bberry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Thanks for the responses Teco (separate email) and Ian. >> >> Ian Chakeres wrote: >>> The decision to allocate one port was discussed in the MANET group. We >>> chose to reserve a single port to allow multiple protocols to be used >>> together. For example, it is extremely likely that NHDP will be used >>> with both DYMO and OLSRv2. >>> >>> 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. >> OK. Perhaps the WG should discuss it before we discount it. > > This issue is open for discussion, but as I mentioned I do not think > there is sufficient WG support. I personally do not think asking for > both a UDP port and an IP protocol number is good for ensuring > interoperability - and this is the main reason we have requested the > IANA allocations in this document. I think running a routing protocol over UDP is less efficient than directly over IP. As long as the rough consensus is happy w/ UDP, I'll chill-out. If the MANET protocols will be UDP and packetbb based, should the text in packetbb be modified to be more specific? ""The packets defined by this specification are designed to carry a number of messages between in a single transmission. The packets may be unicast or multicast and may use any transport protocol (TCP, UDP, ...) appropriate to the protocol using this specification and may travel over a single logical hop which might consist of one or more IP hops. When the diffusion mechanism enabled by this specification is employed, UDP may be most appropriate."" >From my read, there is confusion when a draft trys to remain so generic in one sense and then specific in another. Perhaps it is just me and the pieces will come together in due time. > Regarding packetbb's IANA needs, I think they are best served in the > PacketBB document. PacketBB requests the registries associated with > its type spaces. The other documents (e.g. TimeTLV, NHDP, DYMO, > OLSRv2, and metrics documents under consideration) then request IANA > allocations from the spaces created by the packet BB document. > > Ian Chakeres > >>> 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. >> I have. It appears to suggest three different IANAs. >> A new registry for message types must be created >> A new registry for packet TLV types must be created, >> A new registry for address block TLV types must be created. >> >> Can these be in one draft, the MANET IANA doc, or is the plan to have >> three separate drafts. Or is the plan for each protocol to track >> its own? I went back through the archives and did not see such >> discussion. >> >> I am suggesting that the MANET IANA draft may be a good place, >> specifically if multiple protocols will co-exist, sharing TLVs >> and ports. >> >> Sorry if I missed the discussions on these. >> >>> 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=15731&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 >>>> > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf