Re: [6tisch] [Roll] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-roll-unaware-leaves-02.txt
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Fri, 23 February 2018 13:45 UTC
Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96C11242EA; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 05:45:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 i3fxnHKQqKkf; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 05:45:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0DAA124239; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 05:45:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8700; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519393529; x=1520603129; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=8bYlNsGXI37JAN19RKRH2C0hwxLvBAvgsRIWvW+bYXc=; b=QO5YDqMI1P7jDrtNM1S7t+j04+BeOtBNCwEE4LrXNn6DDtZabJHZX+jy FYej4/JpPjH6AX8vlhtXyiss0YtH3ZJii6ETOvTQdy/8zWc+U0gHTGaQD WG+bsNFEC/N5okJMP5KPKctcc22NVD7BhP+WpcAhRBFIzRCxr7308KSJw 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AaAQByGZBa/5tdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNPgVYoCoNeiiWNfIICexuWUYIWCoUzAhqCG1QYAQIBAQEBAQECayiFIwEBAQQjEUADAhACAQgRBAEBAwIjAwICAjAUAQgIAgQOBQiKG6tzgieIeIIeAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYEPhAmCJ4FXgWaCdzaFBYMzgmUFmjOKDwkCjC+JVoIohimLfYscjGICERkBgTsBHzmBUXAVgn2CVBwZgW14izeBGQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,383,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="352680310"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Feb 2018 13:45:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1NDjSYa029556 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:45:28 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:45:28 -0600
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; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:45:28 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
CC: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-roll-unaware-leaves-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHTqvUqiyrunT5oXUuWaZlTwS084qOulacfgAJh04CAAPSx0A==
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:45:16 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:44:46 +0000
Message-ID: <485b1a006f824b8997ad11fd2fd006da@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <151920480372.9603.17635052466831884104.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0507EB1B-3B42-4108-A511-EEE413CF0FE4@cisco.com> <3DEB8A21-2DA4-4E92-8772-23AC68C28877@imt-atlantique.fr>
In-Reply-To: <3DEB8A21-2DA4-4E92-8772-23AC68C28877@imt-atlantique.fr>
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: [10.55.22.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/9hlJjV48X6l1_ZTyP8X-yXDe9sA>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [Roll] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-roll-unaware-leaves-02.txt
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:45:32 -0000
Hello Georgios Thanks a bunch for your comments, very helpful! Please see below: From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Georgios Z. Papadopoulos Sent: jeudi 22 février 2018 16:47 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org> Cc: 6tisch@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-roll-unaware-leaves-02.txt Hello Pascal, Please find my comments below. Georgios Section 1: */ RPL also leverages Routing Stretch to reduce further the amount of control traffic and routing state that is required to operate the protocol. GP> The concept of Routing Stretch is not clear to me. [PT>] I added a pointer to RFC 6687, there’s a lot of information in there. Also adding a sentence. The text now reads “ RPL is a Distance-Vector protocol, which, compared to link-state protocols, limits the amount of topological knowledge that needs to be installed and maintained in each node. In order to operate in constrained networks, RPL allows a Routing Stretch (see <xref target="RFC6687"/>), whereby routing is only performed along a DODAG as opposed to straight along a shortest path between 2 peers, whatever that would mean in a given LLN. This trades the quality of peer-to-peer (P2P) paths for a vastly reduced amount of control traffic and routing state that would be required to operate a any-to-any shortest path protocol. “ *************** */ RPL can only provide a best effort ratability, connecting most of the LLN nodes, most of the time. GP> Rephrase this part of the sentence [PT>] Done. The text now reads “ RPL is designed to adapt to fuzzy connectivity, whereby the physical topology cannot be expected to reach a stable state, with a lazy control that creates routes proactively but only fixes them when they are used by actual traffic. It results that RPL provides reachability for most of the LLN nodes, most of the time, but does not really converge in the classical sense. " */ When a routing protocol such as RPL is used to maintain reachability within a Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) subnet, Some nodes may act as routers and participate to the routing operations whereas others may be plain hosts. GP> Typo: subnet, Some —> subnet, some [PT>] Done. ******************** */ With this specification, a 6LN may declare itself as a router in the 6LoWPAN ND exchange in order to declare that it will manage it own routing. GP> The end of the sentence may need a rephrase. [PT>] Changed to: " With this specification, a 6LN that operates as a Leaf uses the 'R' flag to declare itself as such and the 6LR that accepts the registration will inject routing information on behalf of the 6LN in the RPL domain. " ******************** Section 6.3: Also as prescribed by [I-D.ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update], the 6LR generates a DAR/DAC message upon reception of a valid NS(EARO) message for a new registration. If the exchange succeeds, then the 6LR installs a Neighbor Cache Entry (NCE). */ At this stage, and upon each NS(EARO) received afterwards that maintain the NCE in the 6LR; GP> I find this sentence as repetition with the previous paragraph. [PT>] Reworded; the point is that there is the first registration with a DAR DAC exchange and then the others without it " Also as prescribed by <xref target="I-D.ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update"/>, the 6LR generates a DAR message upon reception of a valid NS(EARO) message for the registration of a new IPv6 Address by a 6LN. If the Duplicate Address exchange succeeds, then the 6LR installs a Neighbor Cache Entry (NCE). If the 'R' flag was set in the EARO of the NS message, and this 6LR can manage the reachability of Registered Address, then the 6LR sets the 'R' flag in the ARO of the response NA message. From then on, the 6LN periodically sends a new NS(EARO) to refresh the NCE state before the lifetime indicated in the EARO expires, with TID that is incremented each time till it wraps in a lollipop fashion. As long as the 'R' flag is set and this router can still manage the reachability of Registered Address, the 6LR keeps setting the 'R' flag in the ARO of the response NA message, but the exchange of Duplicate Address messages is skipped. Upon a successful NS/NA(EARO) exchange: if the 'R' flag was set in the EARO of the NS message, then the 6LR SHOULD inject the Registered Address in RPL by sending a DAO message on behalf of the 6LN; else the 6LR SHOULD refrain from injecting the registered address into RPL. " ******************** Section 6.4: */ Upon reception of a DAO message that creates or updates an existing RPL state, GP> maybe indicate, from whom potentially the Root receives a DAO message [PT>] Added before: " In RPL Storing Mode of Operation (MOP), the DAO message is propagated from child to parent all the way to the Root along the DODAG, populating routing state as it goes. In Non-Storing Mode, The DAO message is sent directly to the route. " ******************** Section 6.5: */ Upon reception of a DAR message with the Owner Unique ID field is set to all ones, the 6LBR checks whether and entry exists for the and computes whether the TID in the DAR message is fresher than that in the entry as prescribed in [I-D.ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update]. GP> typo: and entry —> an entry [PT>] Done. ******************** */ If the entry exists but is not fresher, the 6LBR does not update the entry, and answers with a Status "Success" in the DAC message. If te entry exists and the TID in the DAR message is fresher, the 6LBR updates the TID in the entry, and if the lifetime of the entry is extended by the Registration Lifetime in the DAR message, it also updates the lifetime of the entry. In that case, the 6LBR replies with a Status "Success" in the DAC message. GP> You could replace the “fresher” with recent? [PT>] Actually "Fresh" is defined in RPL and repeated in section 4.2.1. "Comparing TID values" of RFC 6775 update. I added a pointer to that. Thanks again for all! Pascal
- [6tisch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tisch] [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification… Michael Richardson
- Re: [6tisch] [Roll] New Version Notification for … Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
- Re: [6tisch] [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tisch] [Roll] New Version Notification for … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tisch] [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification… Michael Richardson
- Re: [6tisch] [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tisch] [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)