Subject: RE: [Manet-dt] IANA Port & Multicast Addresses

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:40:44 +0100

First I don't understand the distinction between
all MANET routers and all MANET nodes. The model
I have (which I think is shared by RFC 2501) is
that a node contains a router and may contain hosts.
So "all MANET nodes" means "all MANET routers" plus
maybe also delivering to all hosts in the MANET, but
that's not clear to me.

Second, what's wanted by NHDP/OLSRv2 and I would
have thought by DYMO (but maybe I'm wrong) is all
MANET neighbours, which is a different concept.
That's actually all NHDP/OLSRv2 need I think.

Third, I think the need for a MANET port is something
we need to discuss. OLSR, for example, has a port (698)
that can also be used by OLSRv2. But there may be
an argument in favour of it using a common port,
particularly cooperating with SMF. But there are
quite a few tricky problems to be solved here first
(such as if OLSRv2 wants to add MPRs to a HELLO
message but SMF wants to add a CDS mechanism).

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 29 June 2006 08:12
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Manet-dt] IANA Port & Multicast Addresses

               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

It has come to the time when we really need "All MANET Routers" and
"All MANET Nodes". I've written up a I-D and I'd like your feedback
before submitting it.

It is only a few pages and very brief.

Let me know what you think.

Ian

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************

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

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 07:53:30 -0700

Regarding 1 = Nodes
I  wanted to gauge interest in a MANET nodes address. Is there a case
where MANET Nodes (both routers and hosts) would need to be addressed,
where all nodes would not suffice? If not, it is easy to snip.

Regarding 2 = Neighbors
All MANET neighbors would be the link-local scoped multicast address
All MANET Routers. I agree this address is needed most urgently. I
drafted this up to see if people feel we should have more scopes.

Design team, please respond and let me know how you feel about
multiple scopes for "All MANET Routers". Both positive and negative.

Chris, is your opinion we should define only one link-local multicast
address at this time?

Regarding 3 = Port
The document says all interoperable implementations use the MANET
port. If you chose to run OLSRv2 on another port, it wouldn't be
considered interoperable. Otherwise, I don't see an issue with running
a protocol on another port.

Ian

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:21:59 -0700

Chris,

> maybe also delivering to all hosts in the MANET, but

We have been discussing this internally too. I think the
question is, is it possible to have a node on a MANET
link that is a neighbor of a MANET router but does not
participate in the MANET routing protocol itself? If so,
then it might make sense to have an "All MANET Nodes"
multicast address that is different from "All MANET
Routers". (And if not, why not?)

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Pedro M. Ruiz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:12:47 +0200

>Routers". (And if not, why not?)
I think that situation might be interesting for some very 
resource-limited devices. What I do not fully understand is why we need 
the "All MANET Nodes" if we can use for that case the "All hosts" 
(224.0.0.1) address.

Regards, Pedro

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro M. Ruiz, Ph.D.                    E-mail: [email-masked]
Fac. Informatica, Univ. of Murcia       Phone:  +34968364335
Campus de Espinardo s/n                 Fax:    +34968364151
E-30100, Espinardo, Murcia              www: ants.dif.um.es/~pedrom/
SPAIN
---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:01:15 -0700

Hi Pedro,

> resource-limited devices. What I do not fully understand is why
> we need the "All MANET Nodes" if we can use for that case the
> "All hosts" (224.0.0.1) address.

Since it is link-scoped, "All hosts" is useful only for reaching
first-hop neighbors; a site-scoped "All MANET Nodes" multicast
address could be used to reach all nodes within the connected MANET.
Do we need "All MANET Nodes" in addition to "All MANET Routers",
though? If there can be nodes on a MANET link that participate
in neighbor discovery but not in the MANET routing protocol then
something like "All MANET Nodes" might be useful.

Fred

________________________________

From: Pedro M. Ruiz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:13 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Ian Chakeres; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] IANA Port & Multicast Addresses

Templin, Fred L wrote: 

	Chris,

	

Regards, Pedro

	Fred

---

From: mase <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:38:58 +0900

Hi, Fred and all,

>something like "All MANET Nodes" might be useful.

In the autoconf framework draft (draft-mase-autoconf-framework-02), a node 
may be in the advertising state, where pre-service MANET-DAD can be 
performed. Such a node doesn't participate in routing message and data 
forwarding, but need to process routing control messages in order to 
perform DAD and DAA (Dupkicate Address Advertisement). In this context, I 
think that all MANET nodes may be useful.

Kenichi