Subject: [manet] NHDP: all addresses

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:06:45 +0900

Hi Chris,

You wrote:
>Fundamentally, all that needs to change in NHDP is
>- A relaxation of address reuse, but with the important caveat above.
>- A relaxation of required address inclusion, with the condition
>  noted above.

Is this implemented in -11?
It still says "All network addresses in a router's Local Interface Set".
And:
  *  Network addresses that include all source addresses of any IP
     datagrams sent by the router on any MANET interface.

I mentioned anycast addresses. Better not to include these in a hello
protocol.
I also highly prefer optimization, where the MANET router *only* advertises
summary prefixes, if available. This is applicable when multiple interfaces 
are used, and doesn't harm the simple boxes using only one.

On:
  *  All other network addresses of the router which are to be made
     known to any other router for any reason.

When there is no need for NHDP, let us not mandate including them in
hello messages.
 
Teco.

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:46:32 +0100

> When there is no need for NHDP, let us not mandate including them in
I think the idea behind this two points is that you can do two-hop routing 
even if you have not received TCs from your 2-hop neighbors.

Henning Rogge
--
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-263,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0

---

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:55:56 +0900

>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: Henning Rogge [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Verzonden: maandag 9 november 2009 16:47
>Aan: [email-masked]
>CC: Teco Boot; [email-masked]
>Onderwerp: Re: [manet] NHDP: all addresses
>

I discussed this with Justin few minutes ago.
There might be an issue with reachability when the
node does not send a TC, but leave this to its MPRs.
These MPRs needs the prefixes.
I don't like this mixed up neighborhood discovery and routing,
but we have to look at it in more detail.

Teco.

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:39:52 -0000

> Is this implemented in -11?

Yes.

> It still says "All network addresses in a router's Local Interface
Set".

Yes. That's what the Local Interface Set is, all the addresses you need
to include. If you don't need to include it, don't put it in the Local
Interface Set.

Now then Section 6 (before Section 6.1) says

   It is not necessary to include all addresses of an interface in the
   Local Information Base, and hence in HELLO messages.  However any
   address that may be the source address of an IP datagram sent from
   that interface MUST be included (and at least one address MUST be
   included).  A protocol using this specification MAY add additional
   requirements to these, e.g. that any address that may be the
   destination address of an IP datagram is also included.

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