Re: [manet] [Int-area] SMF and intarea-ipv4-id-update

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 14 September 2011 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5371721F8B78; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.163
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.436, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yD7wX-Vov+G0; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D470421F8B77; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p8ENXN2u022606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E7139C3.3010905@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:33:23 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Macker <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>
References: <DEC49BE6-4A03-4A6C-B50E-35CA8794E4E5@inf-net.nl> <4B71EC55-1D87-43CA-8C7A-B6552C23D600@nrl.navy.mil>
In-Reply-To: <4B71EC55-1D87-43CA-8C7A-B6552C23D600@nrl.navy.mil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>, int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [manet] [Int-area] SMF and intarea-ipv4-id-update
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:31:40 -0000

Hi, all,

I'm getting back to updating this doc, and wanted to come back to this 
issue...

Is there a reason why the mechanism proposed for IPv6 (which does not 
reliably include an ID field) is insufficient for IPv4?

Joe

On 3/30/2011 7:10 AM, Joe Macker wrote:
> Yes this is an optional duplicate detection scheme and is an example of use in practice.
>
> Also As Teco mentioned this intended for limited use in edge network multicast systems.
>
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Teco Boot wrote:
>
>> Sorry for x-posting. But there is a conflict in:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-smf
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update
>>
>> SMF has a duplicate packet detection function based on the IPv4
>> ID field. So text in ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update section 4
>> is not correct, in that there would be no deployments for such.
>> That said, SMF deployment with IPv4 DPD on IP-ID would be limited.
>>
>> What to do?
>>
>> Teco
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area