Subject: [dtn-interest] IP Neighbor Discovery draft available for review

From: Angela Hennessy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:57:06 -0500

We would like to announce a new draft describing DTN IP Neighbor
Dsicovery, which is available at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-dtnrg-ipnd-02.txt

Any comments or questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Angela

---

From: "Fall, Kevin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 20:57:29 +0000

There's currently activity in IETF to extend mDNS (Boujour).
It just met on Tue as a BOF.
(agenda here:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/85/agenda/mdnsext/)

Since IPND is targeted for IP anyhow, is there a significant deficiency in
using (say, an evolved) mDNS?
- K

On 11/8/12 11:57 AM PST, "Angela Hennessy" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>dtn-interest mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:13:25 -0500

> Any comments or questions would be greatly appreciated.

The approach is great for DTNs that are overlaid on IP networks.

Many moons ago, some of us proposed a mechanism that was
independent of the underlay, and could be used to indicate
predicted future contacts, contact durations, etc.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wyllie-dtnrg-badisc-01

This was implemented in DTN2, and tested to limited extent.

In my opinion, that approach is superior, though I was an
author, so may carry a bias.

It would be good in the group to think about what the real needs
and desirable properties for a discovery protocol are.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems

---

From: "Fall, Kevin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 21:23:47 +0000

Just to pile on a little...

We also worked on this draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-mcmahon-dtnrg-dtn-edp-00.txt

which was not underlay-specific [and has since expired, regrettably].

Honestly I would like to see one bundle-layer discovery protocol that maps
to underlying ones.
(which might be Boujour, LLMNR, Alljoyn, whatever).

- K

---

From: Sebastian Schildt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:54:15 +0100

On 11/08/2012 10:13 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> The approach is great for DTNs that are overlaid on IP networks. Many 
> moons ago, some of us proposed a mechanism that was independent of the 
> underlay, and could be used to indicate predicted future contacts, 
> contact durations, etc. 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wyllie-dtnrg-badisc-01 This was 
> implemented in DTN2, and tested to limited extent. In my opinion, that 
> approach is superior, though I was an author, so may carry a bias. It 
> would be good in the group to think about what the real needs and 
> desirable properties for a discovery protocol are. 

In our opinion one great thing about IPND (we used the old draft 
specification http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-ipnd-01 in our 
implementations) is, that despite its name it is not really IP specific. 
The general frame format can be used on top of any transport adding 
suitable entries in the services block. In fact µDTN 
(http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/mudtn/) includes some support for 
IPND, even though it runs on sensor nodes using IEEE 802.15.4 without 
any IP stack.

Maybe the current draft should be reworded a little bit to make clear 
that its scope can be extended beyond IP towards any transport/medium 
supporting local broadcasts.

Sebastian