Subject: [Tsvwg] DCP comment

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 16:53:18 +0300

Hi all!

	First of all, I hope that this is the right forum to discuss about DCP...

	I have taken a look to the DCP draft, and I was so surprised when I saw that the DCP-Move Packet has the following structure:

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    /                       Generic DCP Header                      /
    /                          (12 octets)                          /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   Reserved    |           Acknowledgement Number              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         Old IP Address                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Old Port             |           Reserved            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         Mobility Nonce                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                     Options                   |    Padding    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                             data                              |
    |                              ...                              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

	Obviously, there is no support for IPv6 addresses... I know that the support for mobility that DCP offers is very limited, and that it is the intention of the authors to keep DCP as simple as possible. However, wouldn't it be better something like this?

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    /                       Generic DCP Header                      /
    /                          (12 octets)                          /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   Reserved    |           Acknowledgement Number              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Old Port             |       Old IP Address Type     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    \                                                               \
    /                         Old IP Address                        /
    \                                                               \
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         Mobility Nonce                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                     Options                   |    Padding    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                             data                              |
    |                              ...                              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

	And then making the "Old IP Address" a 4-byte or 16-byte long field. Since this kind of packet is not supposed to be a common one, you can always use always a 16-byte long field and then use only the first 4 bytes if the old address was an IPv4.

	For the "Old IP Address Type", you can use the types 4 or 6 for IPv4 and IPv6 (or 5 and 6 as we do in SCTP, :->), or simply 4 and 16 (and then call this field "Old IP Address Length"), so the calculation of the position is easier to do...

	Instead of using the second 16-bit Reserved field, you could use the first one. Or use only one byte of that second Reserved field, so you still have space to include more fields in the future...

	In my opinion, giving support only for IPv4 is somehow shortsighted... :-/. Note than I'm not an expert at all in DCP and I might be saying something silly.

	Thanks!

	BR Iván Arias Rodríguez

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

---

From: "Armando L. Caro Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 12:11:05 -0400 (EDT)

Ivan,

There is a separate mailing list for DCP <[email-masked]>. And btw, it is
now DDCP.

~armando

0--                                                --0
| Armando L. Caro Jr.     |       [email-masked] |
| University of Delaware  |  www.cis.udel.edu/~acaro |
0--                                                --0