Re: [Iot-directorate] [E] Re: Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 20 January 2021 05:41 UTC
Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063A93A0D64; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:41:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 header.b=C1NP17sz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=u3+xntmX
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 z0jiYiBdU_yy; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52DAE3A0D50; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:41:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=19989; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1611121260; x=1612330860; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=27TQM+ngDO31HorOs53eEs+ftWeKhxXtzZByJz26TZc=; b=C1NP17szSY/V/b072ZoNuek5/8DY+cI8yn/P9PExTBJMumnaICtiK9QY Y1UtZX2ICOX7J6BRorz0buWGkylBWLzOwf9B7ER+lqvv/qfOwWN1l4sLR +RZTMjaPRXQhDi74m9YW0fYVvnkUCiPfGFHqP3Auh0myaJY9r4En3IB/9 g=;
X-IPAS-Result: A0DPAAAcwgdgmJ1dJa1iHQEBAQEJARIBBQUBgX4FAQsBgSIwUX1bLy+EQINIA4tvgXIllCOEc4FCgREDVAsBAQENAQEYAQkHBAIEAQGESgIXgVwCJTcGDgIDAQEBAwIDAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBhjYMhXQCBAEiHQEBLAsBDwIBBgISLQMCAgIwFAMOAgQOBYMmAYF+VwMuAQ6TRpBrAooldoEygwUBAQaFEhiCEQMGgTgBgnWEAAGCTmCDEiYbgUE/gREnDBCCVj6CG0IEF4EDCRw1FoJsNIIsgViBCjsLBDIhIDByFQQGIQ4BTwEPkjU/hzSMOJE/CoJ3iS+SOQMfgyqKMI0Rh3+fN5Y0AgQCBAUCDgEBBoFsIoFZcBU7KgGCPlAXAg2OIQwOCRSDOopYdAIBFCACBgEJAQEDCXyLJgEB
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:28riyh9uPsYa0/9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ650hzqhDabmn44+7ZRKN9+lgylTOWMPQ7aEMh+nXtvXmXmoNqdaEvWsZeZNBHxkClY0NngMmDcLEbC+zLPPjYyEgWsgXUlhj8iKpLUUTE8H7IVbU8TW+6DcIEUD5Mgx4bu3+Bo/ViZGx0Oa/s53eaglFnnyze7R3eR63tg7W8MIRhNhv
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,360,1602547200"; d="scan'208,217";a="651540059"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 20 Jan 2021 05:40:59 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 10K5exDf007526 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 05:40:59 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 23:40:58 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:40:57 -0500
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:40:57 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=JVeWkYgNJYsN3e7Hn4rdZwpsidso3ovL9Ely23Kpr6lYtjM4ryUq1yT3iVb8F2lS5U8HGYbY0RWTlY76zrOJAEnLCBKXs5CIZH7NtXhoEKKo8//v3ZHuWlVZbiOKv1I7rqZteagB/+gC6tL3b1U6LqNsXSKEG5ygbGOdvV1Vm3EKKGaQRA8Qv7DPd0Ln9yftLRUMHMhQitfKcOWx2M4QP+ZEIeZqCPB+AXpEn3REDO+nPBuF9F1/E+bVuT3lGABb0gQtdGRn3PDuTWtd/Rg6fh9SlqsEWBJ9eYdI2GijULXI3KrojD1ZRilvMmEG8++2w3HUYfjd94Yrv+Ro8gmR2g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=27TQM+ngDO31HorOs53eEs+ftWeKhxXtzZByJz26TZc=; b=XqAKOUt7+83l9rRVfKdFk//RZrGK4qPqErPvFePO7sNWOd8fCHaq/PckodtUOVk2HlziXQQWBJBfVU+O89ak7odqb0sPmcgCyr6XNXq6auAX0a+XgqNb5FYHY8kK+/sNFdnOzfOJMcH5Mzmze9Ty0YIHuFIS5Cc5Vc+01j8UFP7WtYNmAlrZ6N+Iw+cSy66/GyMb+peaDxXDRYZaJgfQsNce3wGwn471U7U0IGTyVaKYucget5U5zOR+Stt/ULVvEQ5OqVChZu5SZDFcSy0Eq57eB1j/rsp1pyJUYNdNa+cyjYr+RYZCCExCLTP6sd8y1VBmZ4iP9f1b0gfbvczO0A==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=27TQM+ngDO31HorOs53eEs+ftWeKhxXtzZByJz26TZc=; b=u3+xntmXjJdLgrDLJp3VckM9+i/2mVCeyNZm9GO9ZEvt0F9TZWe1BUeL3wOiC3OLZtrEKLfPE6phCMF5XQxfoNI8Wa3nuljorwdO9iD/26gu2do+7C9byNmN4E8vwEDJ0udLBRkogIX2xC1ORnEdbTif4YQ3LW5gleorcXkjVT0=
Received: from CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:91::20) by CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:9b::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3763.10; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 05:39:42 +0000
Received: from CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::14a1:29eb:e708:d7e6]) by CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::14a1:29eb:e708:d7e6%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3763.014; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 05:39:42 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "Chakrabarti, Samita" <samita.chakrabarti@verizon.com>
CC: "wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn" <wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn>, "noreply@ietf.org" <noreply@ietf.org>, IETF IoT Directorate <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rift-applicability.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rift-applicability.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [E] Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
Thread-Index: AQHW7uiX6t+IzTr1uEOzwJVVELYSKaov/3yy
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 05:39:42 +0000
Message-ID: <FE699B1B-E124-4404-8669-E27961AB458C@cisco.com>
References: <161107643776.13369.1591699344522715874@ietfa.amsl.com> <202101200916077178344@zte.com.cn>, <CAHYRG6O75M96DvTTXbWLOv9UZgz-vbPuYWdab+eUhc-f4ZASbg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHYRG6O75M96DvTTXbWLOv9UZgz-vbPuYWdab+eUhc-f4ZASbg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: zte.com.cn; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;zte.com.cn; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2a01:cb1d:4ec:2200:1560:3e5d:7125:5f86]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5b7ffe78-0c0b-4198-5732-08d8bd05c9b3
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO1PR11MB4930:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO1PR11MB4930463825A3B187ED28D405D8A20@CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(396003)(346002)(136003)(66446008)(8676002)(6486002)(2906002)(6916009)(66946007)(478600001)(6512007)(186003)(966005)(33656002)(53546011)(166002)(36756003)(91956017)(66574015)(4326008)(66556008)(8936002)(54906003)(316002)(86362001)(2616005)(83380400001)(66476007)(76116006)(64756008)(71200400001)(6506007)(5660300002)(45980500001)(244885003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: dQoq7J2ii7nkoQSYvbkj9MwvXF6BRFFyUd6Rs9F1fIiKlVql0M9CB0rWvnRES9vvm5fDqZXurf92j8OYGWje0ojxAOyyvJ/Is+u8pNk+p0GLC+rZgbgfSukmhUYO/LMUx8PSJzUqZ8JyGxFBT5LswmyRvU/VK0PXqQqe6NK8JNWfUvXjSk8k3C2CczsYWAd9yq5NraAjjShEC+Rfa5/29eyBMw7mkkFK1EOHdENO6MRI2FyowA8Pg9OzQhtwJiENng0qsP1O7vpd5egjknSVbpAfd7bd8e173LszPVPjlphvdV+c5Y5bbYeRx785J8JFQQqcCtO4S07rJqPQrkKl3xO0FsUx6Ax0aMc7l5biQMsCaaYAh1xHNSK5nzwZilIZclACh+lFXkaiOJ2Gz8pjVuPpI0ZsMhex+P4bW3FRm/CE75WbwHG9IkBJ86HN7oI6l8Y4/e3UkTivdMQPGsUqtwcYqFcnkop5S1+mVffImceAbaA2ixFGfaI9dex9fJ7c/ZMBQGX6R9YrYgW98esoMtfe4YJ7HOz5cz3+NoY2a+Cy4rkQA6lQiRZijhRXP/QiFXS4xKxwtrgU1xeKicU7TH6JYfhb01r8Lm39THwFnFeLHh86BXacyH7My7UdnzDBHFpX/GJCkqewzLwGEhh09QXs0K7EgqWU1KhXM2+qIUAmw9D1oFoSObjXjBvMSQJrbZixn6zw2Ia2yPkqVbmAdKlBg6o2dKkGkWIkI4mW0QIY6EMOw5Xrk3QemvOEuuhFcKGg/mBtD5uKlnZxcjBHNAKTnQIC4bsEoABRQNwKonl3WxyepY8JhvSFXSiu/4C5e8jv0V78CE7RER6Fbra+Ftc63jEjraCqIGGtprgMtkekX4pH6fzMlQa4C/6Qb6+oaVXqYkcSsfoJlCyWmFOEw6tBA6Dn9zK9Lhow+LM53LqygJVI4pd6dHsJyIlNkipbH/VX/q9Xp7BmVKIIxtnHnC0B7M3Og/JhwDVmH1ho3n/KEImktQEZombdg9A+yo44S7gnYYzXvygAziPGnWZR3Fmaetdjd9G4n3rqfe15WKkLe2LKe+OFOeFgmrdAc00C
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FE699B1BE12444048669E27961AB458Cciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5b7ffe78-0c0b-4198-5732-08d8bd05c9b3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Jan 2021 05:39:42.7911 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: P9cCbfzyC8e9phvTZFUjERY7/+yDRC6PcU+G39frTaFNUeER6PIzMtoUdlu1L3dy9emvzOG9Rumq76ddP5Rliw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR11MB4930
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/Tqli1Y0jeiypAsuPmorT93jIsB8>
Subject: Re: [Iot-directorate] [E] Re: Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
X-BeenThere: iot-directorate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the IoT Directorate Members <iot-directorate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iot-directorate/>
List-Post: <mailto:iot-directorate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 05:41:06 -0000
Dear Samita The design of RIFT inherits the anisotropic design of a default route upwards (north); it also inherits the capability to inject external host routes at the leaf using WiND. Both protocols are meant for large scale, and WiND enables device mobility at the edge the same way in both cases. I’d think that the main difference is that wi RPL there’s a single Root whereas RIFT has many ToF nodes. The adds immense power for ECMP leaf to leaf, and additional complexity with the need to disaggregate. Also RIFT uses Link State flooding northwards, and is not designed for low power. Still nothing prevents that the IP devices connected at the leaf are IoT devices. A network that serves high speed/ high power IoT devices should typically provide deterministic capabilities. The fat tree is highly reliable but doesn’t provide hard guarantees. As long as it is non blocking the result is the same; but there can be load unbalances and incast that will impact the traffic. Note that the load balancing is not RIFT’s problem, but it is key to serve IoT correctly. Take care, Pascal Le 20 janv. 2021 à 05:56, Chakrabarti, Samita <samita.chakrabarti@verizon.com> a écrit : Hi Yuehua, That was a question to the authors. I am sure Pascal Thubert, one of the authors can help. What I meant is the typically IOT network of special devices (sensors, cameras, mini-robots etc. battery operated devices) form a separate network (mesh or RPL-RFC6550 like DAG) which runs IOT routing protocols, but the network is connected to the regular IP(v6/v4) network through a gateway which can speak to both sides. Now the question is - if this scenario requires any special applicability mentioning in this draft or not? Thanks for your prompt response, -Samita On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:16 PM <wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn<mailto:wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn>> wrote: Dear Samita Chakrabarti, Thank you for the comments. I will fix the definition and term issue which has been raised by several reviewers. About the IoT applicability, would you please offer me more information about IoT network concerning "a root gateway/switch of a IoT network"? Thank you. Best Regards, 魏月华 Yuehua Wei M: +86 13851460269 E: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn<mailto:wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn> 原始邮件 发件人:SamitaChakrabartiviaDatatracker 收件人:iot-directorate@ietf.org<mailto:iot-directorate@ietf.org>; 抄送人:draft-ietf-rift-applicability.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rift-applicability.all@ietf.org>;last-call@ietf.org<mailto:last-call@ietf.org>;rift@ietf.org<mailto:rift@ietf.org>; 日 期 :2021年01月20日 01:14 主 题 :Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03 Reviewer: Samita Chakrabarti Review result: Ready with Nits I have reviewed draft-ietf-rift-applicability from IoT point of view. The document describes routing in the Fat Tree ( mostly CLOS architecture) applicability. I do not find any impact of this work on the IETF IoT networks. The document methods and RIFT/Fat trees generally are not used in IETF IoT protocols. However RPL uses directed graphs with a different protocol. I did not see any direct IoT applicability of this document to IoT networks. However, for larger IoT devices and switches one might extract some ideas out of this document in the future. Though I don't see direct IoT applicability, I still wish to ask a question to the authors: will they view a root gateway/switch of a IoT network to act as a leaf in the fat tree architecture ( example: DC scenario) ? If so, please consider adding a paragraph on IoT applicability in RIFT. In general, the document is full of acronyms that might be too familiar with the routing area group ( PoD, TOF, ...), but it will help if the document has a definition of terms section or a pointer to such document in the beginning ; alternately, it can add the acronyms in the relevant diagrams to understand their usage. -- Iot-directorate mailing list Iot-directorate@ietf.org<mailto:Iot-directorate@ietf.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_iot-2Ddirectorate&d=DwICAg&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=r0RnyF5_YfoOjDsulOZzbPiTJgF2X0QeztKL85meS84&s=0nQPW9Fvbw6Pe3vUh8aln_MHMOuu5mwVfULNBl_knKA&e=
- [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of draf… Samita Chakrabarti via Datatracker
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of … wei.yuehua
- Re: [Iot-directorate] [E] Re: Iotdir last call re… Chakrabarti, Samita
- Re: [Iot-directorate] [E] Re: Iotdir last call re… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Iot-directorate] [E] Re: Iotdir last call re… Chakrabarti, Samita
- Re: [Iot-directorate] [E] Re: Iotdir last call re… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Iot-directorate] [E] Re: Iotdir last call re… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)