Thanks for the responses Teco (separate email) and Ian. Ian Chakeres wrote: > The decision to allocate one port was discussed in the MANET group. We > chose to reserve a single port to allow multiple protocols to be used > together. For example, it is extremely likely that NHDP will be used > with both DYMO and OLSRv2. > > Before you voiced your suggestion to allocate an IP protocol number, > the issue has never arisen. Unless there is WG support to allocate an > IP protocol number, I do not think it will be allocated.
OK. Perhaps the WG should discuss it before we discount it. > > Regarding packetbb IANA considerations and other MANET WG protocols > additional IANA needs they are addressed in their documents. For > example, see packetbb's IANA section. I have. It appears to suggest three different IANAs. A new registry for message types must be created A new registry for packet TLV types must be created, A new registry for address block TLV types must be created. Can these be in one draft, the MANET IANA doc, or is the plan to have three separate drafts. Or is the plan for each protocol to track its own? I went back through the archives and did not see such discussion. I am suggesting that the MANET IANA draft may be a good place, specifically if multiple protocols will co-exist, sharing TLVs and ports. Sorry if I missed the discussions on these. > > Ian > > On 8/9/07, Bo Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Given that the WG is working to define two standards >> - Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP) >> - Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP) >> that may or may not converge, do we need to allocate >> two port numbers so these protocols can co-exist? >> >> There has also been a suggestion to allocate an IP protocol >> number for a MANET routing protocol. Should this be >> included in this draft? >> >> The various MANET protocols are moving to packetbb which >> will require the definition of several/many TLV identifiers. >> Where are these type IDs going to be allocated and tracked? >> If in the separate protocol drafts, is there a potential >> problem with overlap if IDs? If so, perhaps the MANET >> type IDs should be defined here. >> >> draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-08 currently reserves IDs >> "Message type 0 MUST NOT be allocated because a zero-octet signifies a >> packet header and zero-octets are used for padding. Message types 1 >> to 4 are reserved because they are used by OLSR [4], which uses a >> compatible packet/message header format." >> >> >> >> Thanks >> -Bo >> >> >> >> The IESG wrote: >>> The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG >>> (manet) to consider the following document: >>> >>> - 'Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Allocations for the >>> Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANET) Working Group ' >>> <draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard >>> >>> 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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-08-18. Exceptionally, >>> comments may be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead. In either case, please >>> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>> >>> The file can be obtained via >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt >>> >>> >>> IESG discussion can be tracked via >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15731&rfc_flag=0 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> manet mailing list >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
