Re: [6lo] Adaption of ROLL for mesh-under

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 12 April 2017 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7379128B8D for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hqyho_gEUeGb for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF5ED128896 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2576; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1491983488; x=1493193088; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=qJ6bq/kZzXHqRNKdmaOhCLh6LycVvpI+W2DIwIFdH9I=; b=Abfbg+89FwxSdA4WuJk7LA4p4yhK6cORI1Yx4DkQgbQNTa1df5nUoFKj JuCRzFrd3S9AOsv3akfpdjE9bJ6fwSvtEJlSYe8kavl376vhN+1iqImAs g5pEHR95tuAt8oh+c7ajKBv5+SYpXAihrxWuOzo5YuVGJFCcS2bGLa9gl w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DWAgAu3O1Y/4cNJK1ZAxkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNTYYELhF2JHJExH5VYgg8hC4V4AoNsPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQEBAQIBAQFHJQsFCwIBCA4KLicLJQIEDgWKDQgOqy6KdgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2GUIIFCYJihFYhJoJtgjEFnH8Bkl2Bf4UuiheUAAEfOIEFWxVBEQGGSHWJLQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,189,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="221516156"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Apr 2017 07:51:27 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3C7pRCv010832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:51:27 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:51:27 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:51:26 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: Benjamin Damm <bdamm@ssni.com>, lo <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] Adaption of ROLL for mesh-under
Thread-Index: AQHSs0S/N994fnkl7kukcl5KuMBwhKHBfMEA///f4ig=
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:51:26 +0000
Message-ID: <3BE49481-8869-49DD-91A9-37CF7B532E2E@cisco.com>
References: <1491971619970.42705@ssni.com>, <CD3480AD-3934-4C9E-B6F3-E399A32BACC8@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CD3480AD-3934-4C9E-B6F3-E399A32BACC8@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/2a9v7kJGxyl-Q9bgnnoh-4ejruE>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Adaption of ROLL for mesh-under
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:51:33 -0000

+1

I came to IEEE 802.15.10 at the inception of the work telling them exactly that.

As opposed to IEEE work that would have been pure RPL based L2R, my 'natural' approach for an IETF work would be storing mode and Address Family. Use IPv6 as signaling for all AFs and transport Short addresses as one AF in DAO messages; that design opens to IPv4 and all sorts of MAC layers.

We could also work in non-storing, enabling, potentially, a mixed mode where some hops are IP and some others are L2.

Note that the 6TiSCH backbone design is L2 in the backbone and routed at the IOT edge. 

Regards,

Pascal

> Le 12 avr. 2017 à 06:47, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> a écrit :
> 
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> Just speculating here:
> 
> In RPL itself, you could use "IP addresses" made up from MAC addresses as IIDs.
> For the RPL-routed traffic, you could use 6LoRH-style encapsulation (RFC 8138), which also would fit a mesh-under approach very well.
> So I think the total amount of messages that have to be designed/redesigned to make RPL applicable to mesh-under is very low; you’d mainly need a few new code points to make sure router-over RPL/traffic and mesh-under RPL/traffic are not confused.
> 
> But this also raises the question why you want to go mesh-under, if in the end everything looks so similar to route-over.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> 
>> On Apr 12, 2017, at 06:33, Benjamin Damm <bdamm@ssni.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi folks, I'm new here, so please steer me straight if this is not the right forum.
>> 
>> Is there any work under way that looks at how to use the ROLL-RPL data structures, algorithm, and messages, in a mesh-under network?  The routing in a mesh-under network can be very similar to ROLL-RPL but just one layer down.  Using similar but slightly smaller messages, adjusted for link-level identifiers instead of IP-level identifiers (and of course not supporting IPv6 features in the routing layer) seems like it would be possible, so I'm searching to anyone or any document that might have already led the way for this kind of mapping.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> -Ben
>> 
>> 
>> Benjamin Damm
>> O: 669-770-4000
>> E: bdamm@ssni.com  www.ssni.com
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6lo mailing list
>> 6lo@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo