Vikram,

Yes, there is interest amongst the DLEP co-authors to include  
broadcast/multicast. Do you have any specific ideas?

Regards,
Stan

On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Vikram KAUL wrote:

>
> Reviving this old thread....
>
> Is there any interest in the details of the messages below. I  
> believe that the specifications would be more complete if we include  
> some version of broadcast/multicast.
>
> Perhaps the dlep_tools software could also be modified to handle the  
> upgraded specifications as a proof of concept
>
> Vikram
>
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, A. Riley Eller wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:01:47 -0700
>> From: A. Riley Eller <reller@cococorp.com>
>> To: Vikram KAUL <vkaul@research.telcordia.com>,
>>    "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
>> Subject: RE: [manet] DLEP and broadcast/multicast
>> Perhaps the DLEP specification would benefit from accepting a  
>> pseudo-link identifier for multicast messages?
>>
>> My team's research shows that EFT implementations achieve higher  
>> overall accuracy by measuring multicast messages as a universal  
>> estimator for queuing-plus-congestion. Giving DLEP the ability to  
>> describe that value, and also gaining the ability to control the  
>> radio's performance for multicast traffic, would be a valuable  
>> addition.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On  
>> Behalf Of Vikram KAUL
>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 8:15 AM
>> To: manet@ietf.org
>> Subject: [manet] DLEP and broadcast/multicast
>>
>>
>> Folks
>>
>> I have some questions about how DLEP handles multicast/broadcast  
>> traffic
>> and the intents that the router might have to send to the modem  
>> device.
>> Some of this might have been answered; but I couldn't find it in the
>> archives
>>
>> The inherent nature of DLEP seems focused on neighbor relationships  
>> and
>> link characteristics (MDR, CDR, Latency, etc) are focused on  
>> individual
>> neighbors as identifed by the 'MAC Address Sub-TLV' which is  
>> mandatory in
>> most of the messages
>>
>> My question is related to broadcast and/or multicast traffic that  
>> would
>> emanate from a router. Let us presume that the underlying multicast
>> protocol is SMF for ease of discussion... but it could be anything  
>> that
>> forwards native multicast packets, either via flooding or after  
>> creating
>> trees.
>>
>> How can one use DLEP to specify the MDR/CDR or latency requirements  
>> for
>> those flows ? Is it even possible to do so ? I understand how one  
>> could do
>> it for individual links to neighbors. But if I presume that  
>> multicast and
>> broadcast is the predominant traffic (say 70%-80%, and I don't  
>> believe I
>> am wrong about that), how can one use DLEP   "Link Characteristics  
>> Request
>> Message" to specify that traffic to a particular MAC address should  
>> be
>> able to get at least what is specified by the CDR Sub-TLV
>>
>> Typically (but not always) MAC addresses for multicast IP packets  
>> are set
>> to  01:00:xx:yy:zz:aa for a destination multicast address of  
>> xx.yy.zz.aa.
>> Could one not have that 01:00:xx:yy:zz:aa MAC Address Sub-TLV so  
>> that the
>> modem could identify that traffic to that MAC Address (and hence  
>> traffic
>> to that destination multicast IP address) needs to get at least  
>> that data
>> rate. How the modems would achieve that is a separate question, but  
>> DLEP
>> does not delve into those answers anyway
>>
>> Again, it might be that the charter for DLEP is to focus  
>> specifically on
>> one-to-one relationships (and hence one-to-one specifications and
>> conditions). Could the specs not be augmented to support something on
>> one-to-many specifications ? Just thinking aloud.
>>
>> regards..
>> Vikram
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet