[6lo] instance ID in rfc6775 update

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 12 April 2018 13:40 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 2BC99127136; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 06:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, 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 FQf9IxXJAgUg; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 06:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5155B126CE8; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 06:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4719; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1523540451; x=1524750051; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=bW1Ubgfk8IURNA+tE/KybtfM4wpUlbTqrVWAQYGSQzs=; b=N0ZQSty3DtxPpmAeJm3qMK1L3oygBZotdiIbv6bipIn+WHMGOZUc/d63 Ueg34tugxPcsfVw9fNj5YCo1wjeKnq7sQFSxSIn/SwBCaoJEFGH9NI8gc ktc3rELJqri/uMA+oO4GVxUJPbPkY/GhlbpAzBOrx4c5bADbrgkOGlBIq Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BbBACKYM9a/4gNJK1cGwEBAQEDAQEBCQEBAYJNdWFvMphrgwONfIR7gWcLhQOCIyE3FQECAQEBAQEBAmwdC4VWTBIBgQAmAQQODYQhZKlXiEGCL4d9gVQ/gQ+HRoYMApddCAKOLYE7g1qHN4csiD8CERMBgSQBMiKBUnAVgn6QTY5ZgRcBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.48,441,1517875200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="97370077"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Apr 2018 13:40:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w3CDeoHL024728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:40:50 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:40:49 -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 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:40:49 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
CC: Yan Filyurin <yanf787@gmail.com>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: instance ID in rfc6775 update
Thread-Index: AdPSYqpTuA/gdfvGSVe3wCALBC+A3g==
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:40:27 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:40:12 +0000
Message-ID: <f2519dd3dd364bbfad2d51a4febde366@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.11]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_f2519dd3dd364bbfad2d51a4febde366XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/dAgkXWykGctus-mBGmDWEnhzqOQ>
Subject: [6lo] instance ID in rfc6775 update
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:40:53 -0000

Dear all :

During a conversation on the RIFT protocol it appeared that there are use cases in RIFT to support host mobility with rfc6775-update.
There is a caveat, though, which is in fact common with RPL. Both cases need a concept of multi topology routing.
In the case of RPL, the topology is indexed by an instance ID. In the case of RIFT, there is a need for an index to a RIB, so one octet is probably enough.
A suggestion is thus to use the reserved octet in the ARO to carry an instance ID, and use a bit to signal that this is what that field does, in case there is a need later to overload it with something else.

I understand this is coming late in the process; but then there is no logic associated to the change, this is just passing on an additional information that is useful for more than one candidate protocol.

Please let me know if there is an issue pursuing this. If there is no opposition, my plan it currently to add this in rev-19.

All the best,

Pascal