[6tisch] RPL instance in Minimal
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Sat, 08 November 2014 15:18 UTC
Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98DBF1A1BC5 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 07:18:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.581 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 wnCjsgl5aMx0 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 07:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 513F71A1BAE for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 07:18:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=859; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415459907; x=1416669507; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=fwYcSU5Tr3t7iVy71bqtuBBf1S9XRQ0z90ah1D1TmOc=; b=lJJTa1AcPZmohmvA/q0SNnLYAPjexirYKSxNQG/r6GKiBllxY1/2ULZt NBbdfcY3lBRbpyYY2t9AbQsg/xYB3NBBQswYMSIW/TERUFWvCV0StOZvy osCPhJD3AO2kJ2Mg9Sau6i9YMnkgadtt5wvamSz6fGf/5lGHbIPyWO9Ki Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAIkzXlStJA2F/2dsb2JhbABbgw5UWQTLWoZ6VQKBGxYBAQEBAXILhAQBBDpRASoUQiYBBBsBiDgNqG+keQEBAQcBAQEBAR2QOgYBAR4zgzKBHgWSJ4RUnXuDeWwBgQYIFyKBAwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,340,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="94743624"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2014 15:18:27 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA8FIQN2022316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 15:18:26 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.165]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 09:18:26 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RPL instance in Minimal
Thread-Index: Ac/7Zymq8u4yhF8mTe2wljGqon6lVw==
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 15:18:25 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 15:18:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848A452FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.75.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/0VIG3PbxrQtb7cP3IHwIDg4FXi8
Subject: [6tisch] RPL instance in Minimal
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 15:18:28 -0000
Dear all: At the last interim call (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/current/msg02661.html) the question of the RPL instance came up for the minimal draft. Should we recommend to use a particular instance or not? Arguments on the table are: - We wish to limit interop issues so suggesting an instance by default could be a good idea - Using a different instance requires signaling or config - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02 can elide instance 0 - Some implementations do not support multi instance routing - We need an instance for time distribution All in all, it appears that instance 0 will be used a lot and if we associate it with minimal, then we must make sure that non minimal time slots can also be associated to that same instance. What do you think? Pascal
- [6tisch] RPL instance in Minimal Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tisch] RPL instance in Minimal Michael Richardson
- Re: [6tisch] RPL instance in Minimal Thomas Watteyne