Note, I am not an author of this particular document, but I've got some
experimental and operational experience with it - having implemented DFF
and built deployments including it.
On 25 févr. 2013, at 06:59, Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Reply to your request dated 07/02/2013
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 24/02/2013
Reviewer Comment #AB3: Related to Processing and interaction with others.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In section 11
AB>The DFF MUST contain the next hop of RIB, but in section 5 it
mentions MAY.
AB>suggest> please amend both should be same requirement for protocol.
AB> the way it determines the next hop does not show that this
protocol is sensitive to other parameters in the RIB, it just takes
the addresses without considering the routing protocol strategy in its
RIB. IMHO, this may make the DFF make mistakes in taking the right
next hop
What you say above doesn't make any sense. DFF considers the content of
the RIB, among other information, and recommends following the "next hop"
indicated in the RIB first - i.e., DFF explicitly takes the "right next
hop" according to "the routing protocol strategy" as expressed in the RIB.
Of course, if you happen to know more about what the routing protocol does
(e.g., have access to internal state of the routing protocol), you could do
something more clever - DFF doesn't prohibit that either, so I think that
the authors struck a nice middle ground here.
Section 12
AB> is not understood, it seems a general not specific, I suggest more
explaining how this interaction with routing protocol is occured?
It seems pretty clear to me what's expected here: signal to the routing
protocol (and then, whatever the routing protocol does with that signal
depends on what routing protocol it is).
It's, IMO, hard to be any clearer here.
Section 13
AB> who creates the sequence number is it the DFF or the routing
protocol. It seems the DFF, so please specify how it will
maintain/save such sequence number in this section.
AB> suggest this section to be : DFF Sequence Number.
[befuddled]
Section 13 is already very clear on this.
Section 14
AB> again do you mean that both modes can work together. I don't think
that you mean that, so you should specify that each routing domain
MUST have one mode, and specify how to maintain that mode in such
protocol.
Eh, here too I am befuddled. I do not see anywhere that the authors
indicate that the two "modes can work together" - actually, the document
doesn't talk about "modes" at all, and the protocol doesn't have "modes".
Rather, this section describes how one would use DFF, depending on what
other choices are made in the network deployment. In other words: DFF
doesn't specify a "mode", but rather says "if your network is of this kind,
then do like that".
So, I think that there's strictly nothing to change here, no need to
maintain a "mode" etc.
Overall> about processing>
AB> this protocol needs to be discussed more how it will interact with
the routing protocols in MANET, 6LowPAN, ROLL. The documents ignore
alot of work done in the IETF which is not fiting the general
applicability it is offering.
No, it doesn't.
DFF is completely orthogonal to routing protocols
DFF can (logically) layer below any routing protocol, without
modifications to that routing protocol.
DFF can use a RIB and can provide signals to a routing protocol (or not -
if the routing protocol doesn't want them)
Thomas
+++++++++++++The END+++++++++++
Regards
AB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
This message is in compliance with the IETF regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2/7/13, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
the following document:
- 'Depth-First Forwarding in Unreliable Networks (DFF)'
<draft-cardenas-dff-09.txt> as Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-02-24. Exceptionally,
comments
may
be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain
the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document specifies the "Depth-First Forwarding" (DFF) protocol
for IPv6 networks, a data forwarding mechanism that can increase
reliability of data delivery in networks with dynamic topology
and/or
lossy links. The protocol operates entirely on the forwarding
plane,
but may interact with the routing plane. DFF forwards data packets
using a mechanism similar to a "depth-first search" for the
destination of a packet. The routing plane may be informed of
failures to deliver a packet or loops. This document specifies the
DFF mechanism both for IPv6 networks (as specified in RFC2460) and
in
addition also for LoWPAN "mesh-under" networks (as specified in
RFC4944).
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/ballot/
The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1645/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1646/