Re: [Anima] ACP -10 [was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-08.txt]

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 23 September 2017 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCD3132C3F; Sat, 23 Sep 2017 13:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rGdkhwozT5Jg; Sat, 23 Sep 2017 13:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE022129B7A; Sat, 23 Sep 2017 13:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j16so2169712pga.1; Sat, 23 Sep 2017 13:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yqXHY6cddYdQ39XmIiOz10Qt1k5ZL07ykTcz2xDm8so=; b=hvOFg0rH9hFceU/mp5/3mU7xKWd9Vsrmqw0wBNwe/78/l4PQO0AEZo7RM9zkiN4G+E pd6quMqWjgjtbLJ5drZ5nU6rIEvcwSwlld0c7rh3ut2TvNB+n9KhIg5CiOdxxhtzcbe9 IKSUJXo3GHUt6hhWnos9wZ6KchD5hX+m0UyQ5/+yUm0iJhngVVWyD4j6vHEudsuCUGQ8 4sRGiMrnskHpymA+2eI4/PipjHLD+HytJiipBsMhW0jQKfyg/QW9hGTmxopbng72Gh/q kmj8sOTrO7GhFF5d2Va5aS/FHqAlD4u+wWlGppmgoz0DWDWcd27uPUKUIF49maS8Ft+p NJ5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yqXHY6cddYdQ39XmIiOz10Qt1k5ZL07ykTcz2xDm8so=; b=qcrrwia/jjcfZKSRF5DC4eAn719LeV9L+QRA2WOp/G6MIMYZdIgj2776jMliLJ9pdC VgsVv2R/+qyhTdkOnDksNnlBOaAWwYjkwQlnHblz8hC41T3BOUSqxHyMwFQQSW/CxKxg r5lbG+IjANNEsQBZCT9AF/pu6P87PzcKFxwP/RCubFnlSSxs2hnrmUi6H4EhOG7zBeKq 4hgjoJLsTM9diQZuRL5n+0gVc9uoA1zjEaEwS3P+7MrMaVacTsi1CHMVvCjtXr1FBnSj 2D2kf+/x+jkk9damRtF0v4OuOVDHlmuUM72HkhikUYEn7OHwyANl8fKarJ8f25RVV30T HP7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgu8cLHgSpve9+/QEeuTvb/z32QK8sY1WUpnytoFSWIyoGzVCGp UTRZ7bPX82VRehsvsxjoFNzlpA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBEMaSgfRVJ2qJawJ3e0dv7B4lNmkSamVNUTI5RiWD07eNiBvz539Bt7yghEN5QTKTTV9iVUw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 59mr3033873plb.442.1506200340715; Sat, 23 Sep 2017 13:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3f51:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3f51:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id q13sm7690708pfi.110.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Sep 2017 13:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: Michael Richardson <>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <>,,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 09:58:54 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] ACP -10 [was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-08.txt]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 20:59:03 -0000

On 24/09/2017 08:43, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>     >> That way, the recipient can compare sender-ttl with the TTL of the received objective
>     >> and threeby figue out which one is closest.
>     >>
>     >> I fine either way. I just tried to go for the most simple, logical option.
>     > Right, so the question for the WG (are you all listening?) is whether we
>     > want to defend the value of the loop count in limiting propagation of multicast
>     > messages. (Remember that it has another role in negotiation sessions, where
>     > it really is a loop-prevention counter.)
>     > I will note that in testing on looped topologies I have seen looped multicasts
>     > dropped because of the session ID; theoretically that is sufficient, and the
>     > loop count is logically redundant.
> So, this lets one
>     a) notice if the M_FLOOD is forged because the TTL of the underlying
>        packet does not agree.
>     b) figure out which M_FLOOD is closer.
> Given:
>     We have ACP built with P2P tunnels between nodes, and on top of
>     that we run RPL to form a *unicast* routing topology.
> Should a GRASP deamon send M_FLOODs to all P2P tunnels, regardless of whether
> they are active RPL routes?    I would tend to say *YES*.

In practice, I think GRASP will send to all the ACP interfaces flagged
as active in the adjacency table. But that amounts to the same thing.

> Given that, one will expect to see the same M_FLOOD from the same sender via
> multiple paths.  That's fine, and I think it's good.  But, comparing them is
> kind of meaningless, because once you find out who the sender is, the unicast
> routing takes over, and you will take the unicast direction only.
> If one hears announcements from multiple senders, then there might be
> different directions, but the TTL you see in the M_FLOOD may have NOTHING to
> do with what the unicast cost is.

True, in a general topology - the LL multicasts combined with GRASP relaying
will ammount to a spanning tree rooted at the M_FLOOD sender, but the unicast
paths will be set by RPL. There's no reason they will be congruent. They might
be. This is a good point!