Re: [6lowpan] FW: TID in ARO [was: "Advertize on Behalf" flag in ARO]

Hi Esko, Erik

The discussion on RPL and hosts should happen on the RPL list under a
different topic. The point being discussed here is this:

The reality is also that those (LLN) networks will need to scale to
large subnets in plants, building, etc... (see the requirement drafts in
ROLL). Registering to all LBRS is totally impractical. 6LoWPAN ND
requires a coordination between LBRs but does not say how it happens.
This problem was discussed in 6LoWPAN; the answer was in ND-01to07; and
it requires a TID, for the same reason as RPL. Removing the backbone
operation and the TID from the draft is ostrich policy.

BTW 6LoWPAN ND needs a TID to correlate the NS and the NA as all other
registrations do when strict ordering is not guaranteed (MIP being an
example). Say that due to some config, a node registers a lifetime of X,
then deregisters (lifetime 0), then reregisters (lifetime X) in a rapid
sequence, but does not get an answer yet. Then it finally gets 2 AROs
back, lifetime X and 0. What's the final state in the router?

I'd like to hear what others think.

Pascal
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7011357/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dijk, Esko [mailto:esko.dijk@philips.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 10:19 AM
> To: Erik Nordmark; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [6lowpan] FW: TID in ARO [was: "Advertize on Behalf" flag
in
> ARO]
> 
> Hello Erik,
> 
> taking the definition you quoted:
>     'host' refers to an LLN device that can generate but does not
forward
>     RPL traffic
> 
> the question may arise what is "RPL traffic"? It is not defined in the
RPL draft
> it seems. Pascal clarified to me it is traffic associated to a RPL
instance, not
> necessarily RPL protocol messages. This means that a host could
generate
> RPL traffic without being aware of the existence of RPL at all. So,
_not_ all
> hosts have to speak RPL?
> The RPL draft does not explicitly state if "hosts" in a RPL network
always
> speak RPL, never speak RPL, or can be mixed RPL/non-RPL speakers.
> 
> Taking the definition of 'node' in the RPL draft:
>         'node' refers to any RPL device, either a host or a router
> 
> rules out (?) the option that all "hosts" are non-RPL speakers, since
there
> may be a "RPL device" (i.e. RPL-speaking device, I assume) that is
also a host.
> 
> I communicated these perceived unclarities to Pascal and the RFC
editor 2
> weeks ago. Once this is clear I think the present discussion can
continue.
> And then there is the related discussion of ND support for sleepy
devices,
> the original topic of Anders ;)
> 
> best regards,
> 
> Esko
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
> Sent: Friday 15 April 2011 18:39
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] FW: TID in ARO [was: "Advertize on Behalf" flag
in
> ARO]
> 
> On 4/14/11 11:43 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> 
> > RPL can do what all classical IGPs can do WRT hosts. That is as long
> > as the host address belongs to the router's prefix and stays
attached
> > to that router.
> 
> I just realized that we might be talking about a different definition
of "host".
> What I mean by "host" is a node which does not participate in a
routing
> protocol, and does not forward packets (except packets explicitly
addressed
> to itself using e.g., a routing header).
> 
> However, RPL has a different definition:
>     'host' refers to an LLN device that can generate but does not
forward
>     RPL traffic
> 
> Basically per the RPL definition there is no such thing as a node
which does
> not participate in the RPL protocol.
> IMHO what is in RPL should have been defined as a non-forwarding node,
so
> that we can have a sane discussion without getting entangled in
terminology
> issues.
> 
> Which definition of "host" are you using above?
> 
> Per the RPL definition there is no need for 6lowpan-nd, since all
nodes will
> speak RPL. This is rather confusing, don't you think?
> 
>     Erik
> 
> > When the topology becomes multilink subnet and mobility is required
> > then it is a new problem entirely, and NO, 4861 is not a suitable
> > interaction with the router to allow the router to redistribute a
host route.
> > Because the neighbor cache that 4861 builds is not a of the same
> > nature as the binding table that 6LoWPAN ND builds. Another thing
that
> > 6LoWPAN ND fails to express correctly. I proposed text to explain
that
> > (attached) but it was not considered, contributing to the illusion
> > that a cache is a table.
> >
> > The reality is also that those networks will need to scale to large
> > subnets in plants, building, etc... (see the requirement drafts in
> > ROLL). Registering to all LBRS is totally impractical. 6LoWPAN ND
> > requires a coordination between LBRs but does not say how it
happens.
> > This problem was discussed in 6LoWPAN; the answer was in ND-01to07;
> > and it requires a TID, for the same reason as RPL. Removing the
> > backbone operation and the TID from the draft is ostrich policy.
> >
> > RPL already adapted to the new reality of large multilink subnet
with
> > inner mobility. Placing the blame on RPL is another illusionist
trick.
> > And this is not RPL last call.
> >
> > BTW 6LoWPAN ND needs a TID to correlate the NS and the NA as all
other
> > registrations do when strict ordering is not guaranteed (MIP being
an
> > example). Say that due to some config, a node registers a lifetime
of
> > X, then deregisters (lifetime 0), then reregisters (lifetime X) in a
> > rapid sequence, but does not get an answer yet. Then it finally gets
2
> > AROs back, lifetime X and 0. What's the final state in the router?
> >
> > It seems we can never agree on any of this. I'd like to hear what
> > others think.
> >
> > Pascal
> > http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7011357/
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 1:30 AM
> >> To: 6lo>>  '6lowpan'
> >> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Fwd: Re: "Advertize on Behalf" flag in ARO
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/13/11 12:53 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> >>> Hi Erik:
> >>>
> >>> The RPL (DAO) sequence number allows the node to increment rapidly
> >>> in case of rapid changes and then lazily when the situation is
> >>> stable and DAO are scarce. The increase is strictly monotonous
which
> >
> >>> is critical to us.
> >>>
> >>> A time stamp imposes a synchronization between the routers. We do
> >>> not have such mechanism in RPL. A time unit (a granularity) must
be
> >>> agreed upon. Within that unit, movements go undetected so the time
> >>> unit must be thin grained to cover rapid changes. Yet, depending
on
> >>> the medium, the time unit, and the size of the network, it is not
> >>> necessarily easy/possible to guarantee a strictly monotonous value
> >>> with a thin grained time unit. And we have limited space (2
octets)
> >>> and have to deal with wrap around, which divides the space by at
> > least 3.
> >>>
> >>> So RPL went for a sequence number.
> >>
> >> But the unstated assumption that RPL made is that all
host-to-router
> >> protocols have to now be RPL aware. That doesn't sound like good
> > design.
> >> A host isn't aware of whether the routers speak IS-IS or OSPF, so
why
> >> do the hosts need to be aware of RPL by passing some TID around?
> >>
> >>> I think ND has the same need as MIP for a TID == Sequence # . We
> >>> know of MIP; We know of RPL. We know of the backbone router
> >>> operation. We know we'll need the TID and we know exactly why. I
> >>> think we should have it in the 6LowPAN ND spec right away to avoid
> >>> interop issues when we add RPL and BR operations.
> >>
> >> I don't see a need in 6lowpan-nd for a TID; the protocol works fine
> > without it.
> >> I think RPL needs to be improved to deal with reality. Isn't there
a
> >> desire for RPL to handle 4861 hosts? Those would never know about a
> > TID.
> >>
> >>      Erik
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 6lowpan mailing list
> >> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6lowpan mailing list
> > 6lowpan@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> 
> The information contained in this message may be confidential and
legally
> protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
> that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this
message is
> strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient,
> please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of
the
> original message.