Re: [manet] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-02.txt

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sat, 11 May 2013 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
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 EE19121F8F0F for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2013 06:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.745
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.745 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 mblSueBYI1aM for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2013 06:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com (mail-pd0-f175.google.com [209.85.192.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929BA21F8F03 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2013 06:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id y14so3392858pdi.34 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2013 06:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+esQqlnvjfdXLUfUZAHWImtq6EkOruY1jFpyWiVOdpE=; b=Ks8zDDaBCxWtJg1N2E2RQx+UN79FzHcvmKPWTnEUs2KAL/vUlP/BJv6jcBdw1t/rdU thy9ZRKsdNo2+DKmxXKSt3PIhOclT+RJg+J8RH/gMzBYC/pa0W8KumVEfG/P0sYxln+B 92sWBcRpTFvZxR3kb2JEYc8u0U1mj692monhux9yT1nQoR1cBdQOgkaTwusEjhduCKry WJN4DPvIfW/c6s0HZBEV72K1s8CQPm7xhAK0FMKF6IFosTVGtpvfLPF6bnk7X7Ew2Lkk jON8JvhCy0pTiKaPNGChcZBSEEf/LYWkBb1mVg5IkyVqgYHSyP9FdV6qhpJRVPAn5xGW 3LiQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.193.138 with SMTP id ho10mr21490398pbc.163.1368278932243; Sat, 11 May 2013 06:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.143.132 with HTTP; Sat, 11 May 2013 06:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D25068F8F@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
References: <20130505151526.3223.18240.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <001301ce49d9$eef2e630$ccd8b290$@olddog.co.uk> <CADnDZ89-i2gK6fDZNYi_t1QCxm03XuxdFRLtkYP_YQrMZw=omw@mail.gmail.com> <5188DA58.2080704@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <CADnDZ885m=u7ng-PGfb-0D182f2A3r_w+75JJROeHAdA0o7Qjw@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D25068C34@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CADnDZ88R=ZBdtLLBfebakEFkeeugW8P6RgjFXbPMS2ovHW9RMA@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D25068F8F@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:28:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8-O2XPAH0eYq=MSdGQzhVzC7W=hmk4g9aVEj8fFLUK1AA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr@tools.ietf.org>, manet <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-02.txt
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: Sat, 11 May 2013 13:28:57 -0000

Hi Chris,

>(I can imagine a possible why. But that's imagine, not have an actual reason. Someone might want sometime it is not a reason.)

I know that the want-source came from the document and I as possible
user that need to know the reason of not using RFC5444. The RFC5444
wants all manet routers to use it. If it was not discussed, there is
no harm in discussing issues related, I think discussing I-Ds are
always reasonable in any way.

The I-D is an experimental work in progress, so I am asking to know
more, so I can make a decision to use it or not.

my comments below;

> And the question would be why?
>

The intention of using RFC5444 is to improve OSPF in MANETs or to
improve the document applicability. Within MANETs I may have: NHDP,
AODVv2, OLSRv2, and SMF, that are all using RFC5444. The I-D is
looking into single hop broadcast networks, proposing new interface
manet type, and working within the MANET. I want to reduce the OSPF
flooding overhead, I think/imagine RFC5444 may be used for that need.
Furthermore, OSPF may cover areas of different networks, so MANET has
different security attacks from other nets, so IMO having using
similar RFC5444-sec can help a OSPF packet-type to manet scurity
requirements.

There are experimental documents [1-2] and other informational [3-4]
that should be considered for such discussion.

[1] Danilov, C., et al. (2009) Experimental and Field Demonstration of
A 802.11-based Ground-UAV Mobile Ad-Hoc Network, MILCOM.

[2] Fuertes, et al., (2012) Routing across wired and wireless mesh
networks: Experimental Compound Internetworking with OSPF, 8th Intl
wireless comm and mobile comp conf.

[3] Chakeres, et al. (2007), Connecting MANET Multicast, MILCOM.

[4] Goyal, et al. (2013), Improving Convergence Speed and Scalability
in OSPF: a survey, IEEE comm survey journal.

Regards

AB

On 5/8/13, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
> And the question would be why?
>
> (I can imagine a possible why. But that's imagine, not have an actual
> reason. Someone might want sometime it is not a reason.)
>
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com<mailto:chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> |
> http://www.baesystems.com
>
> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
> Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>
> From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com]
> Sent: 08 May 2013 11:20
> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> Cc: manet; draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [manet] FW: I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-02.txt
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
> This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an
> external partner or the internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> Please see this
> process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>
> on how to deal with suspicious emails.
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com<mailto:Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>>
> wrote:
> This is an extension to OSPF. It is not a protocol to run on the manet UDP
> port/IP protocol as specified by RFC 5498. As such it isn't constrained to
> use RFC 5444.
>
>
> I agree that the extension is not for manet UDP port/ protocol number as in
> RFC5498. The extension is to OSPF for MANET (i.e. OSPF already has a
> protocol number to be used). I was thinking of a new RFC5444 packet
> specially for OSPF that is only used for this extension. Using only RFC5444
> not using RFC5498, and not *OSPF over RFC5444*.
>
> AB
>
>