IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 12 April 2017 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 36CE91293F9 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 21:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1JyGaPIQzS2B for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 21:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF6BD12EB00 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 21:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3C4kPtY028391; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 06:46:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from client-0052.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0052.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3w2rwc6zd3zDHN1; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 06:46:24 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <1491971619970.42705@ssni.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 06:46:24 +0200
Cc: lo <6lo@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 513665184.334537-5afedfd87246bba3f904f6fa23716a5a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CD3480AD-3934-4C9E-B6F3-E399A32BACC8@tzi.org>
References: <1491971619970.42705@ssni.com>
To: Benjamin Damm <bdamm@ssni.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/whNxydRJmRfUCBIfTn2P2Lq8EBo>
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 04:47:13 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email