Subject: [manet] NHDP Issues- TTL/HopLimit - GTSM RFC 5082

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:46:34 +0100

While ago, there was discussion on RFC 5082 GTSM for the MANET protocols.
http://www6.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg10213.html

Now, it is in DYMO, but not in NHDP/OLSRv2.
Because we use same message & packet format, and allow multi-protocol aggregation,
GTSM shall be used for all protocols that use RFC 5444, or leave it out.

A protocol may need a multi-hop path. Packets via such a path need GTSM
check on reception disabled, of course.

What to do? Publish separate document on GTSM for RFC 5444?

Teco

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:56:53 +0100

On Wed January 26 2011 08:46:34 Teco Boot wrote:
> Because we use same message & packet format, and allow multi-protocol
> aggregation, GTSM shall be used for all protocols that use RFC 5444, or
> leave it out.
> 
I see no reason to include GTSM directly into any MANET protocol. It can 
easily be used by any implementation, because it does not change the behaviour 
of either DYMO or OLSRv2.  You could even implement it outside the manet 
protocol by a thin layer between the IP stack and the routing protocol.

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 9435-961,   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: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:13:45 +0100

I read your response as follows:
 - publish a separate document on GTSM for RFC 5444, and take it out of DYMO.
I object against doing nothing. Open issues provide flexibility and 
incompatibility. The latter is not the goal of defining standards.

Teco

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:12:49 +0100

On Wed January 26 2011 09:13:45 Teco Boot wrote:
>  - publish a separate document on GTSM for RFC 5444, and take it out of
> DYMO. I object against doing nothing. Open issues provide flexibility and
A separate document how to use GTSM with RFC5444 compatible MANET protocols 
and the effects on security and compatibility sounds like a reasonable aproach.

Henning Rogge