[Anima] ACP RPL root

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 08 July 2020 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC76B3A0D48 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 yllNmqumLFX9 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 213CA3A0D05 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EC83899E; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:45:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id glf2avSzbnjZ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:45:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D4F3899D; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:45:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87A9A0B; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:47:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 21:47:59 -0400
Message-ID: <8942.1594172879@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/TiAVZxP3T6FL9PhI2FjgEt8uNO4>
Subject: [Anima] ACP RPL root
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 01:48:05 -0000

Ben, is this DISCUSS comment still alive?

> Section 6.11.1.14 places a normative ("SHOULD") requirement on the RPL
> root, but if I understand correctly the RPL root is automatically
> determined within the ACP, and thus the operator does not a priori know
> which node will become the RPL root.  Am I misunderstanding, or is this
> effectively placing this requirement on all ACP nodes?

In LLNs, it is common to designate a specific, high-capacity node as the RPL
root.

In particular, in non-storing mode, the RPL root has to keep a RIB and FIB
for every single node, while the other nodes need only three to five FIB
entries to keep track of parents and active children.

We are using storing mode, so every node already has to have the capacity to
have a RIB and FIB on the order of the number of ACP nodes.
This is not arduous for an Enterprise or ISP class router.
That's the major cost of being the root: the root has to have a complete
table. (But, in storing mode, we only have next-hop, not the full path)

As originally envisioned, the automonic network should be self-forming and
self-healing, which means that partitions of the network should recognize
that there is no root, and choose one.  That level of autonomy is not
reached in this document, or in the ANIMA architecture. In fact, that
level of autonomy got spun off as the SUPA WG.

So, yes, in theory, all ACP nodes could be the RPL root, and when they do,
they need to install blackhole route for ULA space fd00::/10 in order to
prevent loops.  This shouldn't be a big deal.

The RPL DODOG root will in mature situations be the ACP registrar,
and while the market is less mature, in an router designated as the
ACP-connect.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-