Subject: [Manet-dt] Unknown TLVs

From: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:34:06 -0700

In OLSRv2, if an unknown message tlv or address tlv is reached, what
is the behavior?

Ian

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:43:42 +0100

> the test "is this a fragment" could be checked very rapidly
> (look at byte 12 - assuming IPv4 - of the message)

Sorry, that should have been look at byte 14, after checking
that the message TLV length (bytes 12 and 13) aren't zero.
(I'm not suggesting you have to do the test exactly this
way - I won't - but you could.)

********************************************************************
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: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:44:09 +0100

> To this end what if anything could be changed to the OLSRv2 message
> format to make it a better cross algorithm tool and what are peoples
> thoughts on going in this direction?

Mostly I think the question as to suggested changes has to come
from the DYMO/SMF side, as the format seems to work for OLSRv2.
Obviously then there may be counter-views. (I'm not trying to
suggest a conflict, just whilst there may be someone who
understands both thoroughly, I suspect most of us know one
or the other better and will tend to make suggestions from
that viewpoint.)

But the most obvious flexibility change, to the OLSRv2 standard
header, would pose a real issue for OLSRv2 - which is more
important, compatibility with OLSRv1 (note that all OLSRv2
messages are valid OLSRv1 extension messages) or commonality
with DYMO/SMF? (I can see value in both. I have some views
on longer term protocol convergence.) And of course there's
a timeliness issue.