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

Geoff Mulligan <geoff@proto6.com> Thu, 21 April 2011 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <geoff@proto6.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E6DE082A for <6lowpan@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dCcMinrpYdwy for <6lowpan@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server2.coslabs.com (server2.coslabs.com [64.111.18.234]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A11FE0754 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grab (mail.coslabs.com [199.233.92.34]) by server2.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4FC1847D; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:42:04 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [199.233.92.6] (unknown [199.233.92.6]) by grab (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B48C7FD97; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:41:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: Geoff Mulligan <geoff@proto6.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D0470FA00@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
References: <OF05FC8EC8.E2C545F7-ONC1257878.002DC800-C1257878.002DE486@Schneider-Electric.com> <4DAF6B38.7000604@acm.org> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D046502D9@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <1303400445.1671.1576.camel@d430> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D0470FA00@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:42:00 -0600
Message-ID: <1303414920.1671.1849.camel@d430>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] FW: TID in ARO [was: "Advertize on Behalf" flag in ARO]
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:42:04 -0000

Pascal,
  I couple of people supporting the TID is not group consensus.  We have
had many presentations and discussions about multiple LBRs, backbone
LBRs and more and none have met with the support of the working group.

In your opinions we are crashing, but I fail to see that this is the
opinion of the working group.

If there are other in the working group that strongly advocate this TID
idea or the work on multiple and backbone LBRs then they need to speak
up now en masse or we must move on.

	geoff


On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 21:32 +0200, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Geoff:
> 
> There is twice as much support for restoring the TID than there is for  not doing it.
> Before we drop the TID, I'd like to see a proposal that allows a 6LoWPAN ND subnet to scale with multiple LBRs, allows nodes to move from a router to the next, and that does not need a TID.
> Otherwise, we are not speeding towards the wall, we're already crashing.
> 
> Pascal
> http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7011357/
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geoff Mulligan [mailto:geoff.ietf@mulligan.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 5:41 PM
> > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> > Cc: Erik Nordmark; nicolas.riou@schneider-electric.com; 6lowpan@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] FW: TID in ARO [was: "Advertize on Behalf" flag in
> > ARO]
> > 
> > Pascal,
> >   We need to close on this discussion.
> > 
> > Back in Hiroshima the Working Group decided that Backbone router stuff and
> > "address defense" across backbone routers was not going to be part of ND
> > draft.  It appeared that the draft was getting way to complicated and the
> > Working Group decided to simplify things.
> > 
> > I have not seen much support on the list for making these changes to include
> > the TID in ND.
> > 
> > We need to get this draft completed.  If there is a large "unheard from"
> > support group for these changes, please speak up or we shall move forward
> > with the draft as it is.
> > 
> > 	geoff
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 09:27 +0200, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > > Hi Erik
> > >
> > > The TID is not a strong coupling between the H2R and the R2R operations,
> > and it is not a coupling with a RPL version  explicitly.
> > > It is an abstract information that if defined properly can be used by many
> > forms or R2R interactions.
> > > As demonstrated by older versions of the ND spec (Backbone Router), RPL,
> > and MIP.
> > >
> > > 6LoWPAN ND cannot scale if the node needs to register to all LBRs.
> > 6LoWPAN ND does not define anymore any LBR interaction.
> > > IOW, 6LoPWAN ND lost the capability to scale when the backbone router
> > piece was removed from the draft.
> > > Which means that it lost its capability to apply in the domains I'm looking at
> > (industrial and metering).
> > >
> > > With the TID, we know that we can restore scalability in the future, and we
> > know how. I do not know of a plan B.
> > >
> > > Pascal
> > > http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7011357/
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:nordmark@acm.org]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 1:25 AM
> > > > To: nicolas.riou@schneider-electric.com
> > > > Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); 6lowpan@ietf.org; Dijk, Esko
> > > > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] FW: TID in ARO [was: "Advertize on Behalf"
> > > > flag in ARO]
> > > >
> > > > On 4/20/11 1:21 AM, nicolas.riou@schneider-electric.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Pascal and al,
> > > > >
> > > > > I support the idea of reviving the TID in ARO and DAR/DAC.
> > > > > Supporting a TID directly in the node initiating the initial NS
> > > > > appears much simpler than time stamping in the parent router.
> > > >
> > > > How would you make this work if the protocol between the routers is
> > > > not RPLv1, but some future version of RPL or a completely different
> > > > routing protocol?
> > > >
> > > > The decoupling of the host-router interaction from router-router
> > > > interaction has served us well in the history of the Internet.
> > > >
> > > >       Erik
> > > >
> > > > > A simple and efficient method to detect mobility of hosts along a
> > > > > backbone of Edge Routers is an important feature to deploy
> > > > > backbones of Edge Routers in Buildings and should be clarified
> > > > > before closing 6LoWPAN WG.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Nicolas
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>* Envoyé par :
> > > > > 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org
> > > > >
> > > > > 18/04/2011 10:37
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A
> > > > > 	"Dijk, Esko" <esko.dijk@philips.com>om>, "Erik Nordmark"
> > > > > <nordmark@acm.org> cc
> > > > > 	6lowpan@ietf.org
> > > > > Objet
> > > > > 	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.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 6lowpan mailing list
> > > > > 6lowpan@ietf.org
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > > > ____________
> > > > > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
> > System.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > > > ____________
> > > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 6lowpan mailing list
> > > 6lowpan@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> > 
>