Subject: [Manet-dt] Getting started on common packet format for DYMO - discussion message types

From: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:15:08 -0800

I'd like to start by discussing what message types we should have for
DYMO, if we use the common format.

We used to have RREQ, RREP, and RERR. Currently we have RE and RERR.
Essentially the transmission or retransmission of RE and RERR are
depended on a number of factors.

RE are transmitted depending on whether they are flooded (sent to the
DYMOcast address) or unicast.

I have two questions

1) Should we de-couple delivery decisions from the IP layer information?
2) Should we create more message types (i.e. flooded RREQ, flooded
RREP, unicast RREQ, unicast RREP)?

RERR messages are DYMOcast, but retransmissions are limited to only
those nodes that are using the now broken link. Again, I could see the
case where maybe we want DYMOcast RERR and unicast RERR. Should these
be different message types or one message type with bits inside (or IP
layer info) indicating delivery?

I am open to either direction, but I would like to discuss the tradeoffs.

OLSRv2 people please feel free to chime in too.
Ian

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

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:18:51 -0800

Hello Ian,

>1) Should we de-couple delivery decisions from the IP layer information?
I am not exactly sure what is being asked here.  The destination IP 
address ought to
be "typically" enough to govern the delivery decisions.  So decoupling 
isn't really
feasible.   But I am probably not understanding the real quesiton.

>RREP, unicast RREQ, unicast RREP)?
I would expect the number of message types to depend on the number of
different packet formats required.  If the a flooded RREQ has the same
packet format as a unicast RREQ, then I would want them to have the same
message type also.

Regards,
Charlie P.