Re: [Iot-directorate] [E] Re: Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
"Chakrabarti, Samita" <samita.chakrabarti@verizon.com> Wed, 20 January 2021 16:07 UTC
Return-Path: <samita.chakrabarti@verizon.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 C291B3A14B2 for <iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 08:07:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.118
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.118 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_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=verizon.com header.b=WkpRUK1M; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=verizon-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b=GhLEPhGG
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 9AtiIO4YFlk1 for <iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 08:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-0024a201.pphosted.com (mx0a-0024a201.pphosted.com [148.163.149.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D6693A14B9 for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 08:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0114269.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0024a201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 10KFtnOn099412 for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:07:10 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=verizon.com; h=mime-version : references : in-reply-to : from : date : message-id : subject : to : cc : content-type; s=corp; bh=xTabEmcR4npZtUsLpn7ADNeL73ZVnOZAVWZFvDAozqo=; b=WkpRUK1MritKClyrB/RCQMjr3yhcXawlzp8FSRLV/tf3Ia/nEAZrdvu4xzPK9sYNrwkT EYCRIouPDSn6/Cnr8VB0YSBw+3sHbefBHjOiyVuARW0M9rzdcERW8mg/EX92T6f2ZA1Q xR/seNKw2kRJVHvtng+bWaaj22eHTYvra8Q=
Received: from mail-oi1-f198.google.com (mail-oi1-f198.google.com [209.85.167.198]) by mx0a-0024a201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3668ujew1a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:07:10 -0500
Received: by mail-oi1-f198.google.com with SMTP id n16so9708577oie.18 for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 08:07:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=verizon-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xTabEmcR4npZtUsLpn7ADNeL73ZVnOZAVWZFvDAozqo=; b=GhLEPhGG/cmJMvdUHgkuqKOBNuPxl+EQG8u8hC/Jvgyvhk4JFh9XjVSS2uND+fno8o L8EVFhgnrnhMxUJge2ugoYIClwlh28Leezn+Zguz0GWyoAKlrokqMTUQsY5cOEr59GgQ hAEQYyLkGDh3xHsmk7LL0YyXR9JvDzBZqWLJYrf2Uxr1uhl0/fSgJFrHi0spnmZ2HlkE ZxjGqgkkgp1o5FQXQP7gEa1vQKJGUHarayVCYSGJ+T7oTf1PujWErjttn0EYBGqC/SFc 5PbH/DTg4UNh50bLjBu7Ei8cGQBmo2mgVVytkEh3Okc7hB0mCVw9WAclcYTPE8xcY/ii Ks7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xTabEmcR4npZtUsLpn7ADNeL73ZVnOZAVWZFvDAozqo=; b=fxFiI5/OKE3tT1HQYksCtdaCnGHgh+B+okjH3jjepZd1gaZSrIi6Ij20itrQ1+dHqM JUSGpVOHg4KcMiz17BFioYg0//bnBhZkTKvsv69N4EmpuL4UxzIK7Pe/rrSFpbRE4Z87 fOZwU1sib8zmW+u0Unrg4scgMIyvdo02TtMam8SshBdJ2PphnV466iZ9/BX+pAxpG+uh H2jrohd4NvuZ7TmcUJTwuoEoIZpH3wDYuLdJik1aCc3OVF4Wps6n+aibGO9NFsTlGHAx vLmPuZDzgcvrwOoRcusvTMfQtWi8asMZKCueR0bdfpmMR9jO8XSth1c20jcrHKkOyUoH JzeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533V0sbqrpN3KX+iW8JuEuoqYZnSvYEekAKHzl/bbqHpemfS4Kpc t1iGPd7BTyIXz8C8VVDbVvZFWXxYVzKeatB+x/pJZVvON2C8aisYYSrA6m/P/D49vQoHe+KNFOd /7nRv3qHKJ7QNcCrPVATt3F3Vr7t/QzYea8g=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:f00a:: with SMTP id o10mr3382747oih.128.1611158828010; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 08:07:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzfNly9uP6tovSQNsruS8AdJpevr4QdOjhL03SQR1vxVEEeQ94gu6nl6zAjOCV79MmfMAzNz4Qo4u5Z4Y0Rm9g=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:f00a:: with SMTP id o10mr3382709oih.128.1611158827495; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 08:07:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161107643776.13369.1591699344522715874@ietfa.amsl.com> <202101200916077178344@zte.com.cn> <CAHYRG6O75M96DvTTXbWLOv9UZgz-vbPuYWdab+eUhc-f4ZASbg@mail.gmail.com> <FE699B1B-E124-4404-8669-E27961AB458C@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <FE699B1B-E124-4404-8669-E27961AB458C@cisco.com>
From: "Chakrabarti, Samita" <samita.chakrabarti@verizon.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:06:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHYRG6NWRik_A8Z3OpED9vKrgmmi=utA2WHmnGqyHFq9_P-jXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.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>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000972bf105b95725a1"
X-mailroute: internal
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/g5q-O0o9w55JN3UtUV-tk8_kKYU>
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 16:07:13 -0000
Hi Pascal , Thanks for the detailed explanation on the differences between RIFT and RPL. As mentioned earlier, practically today I don't see any impact of RIFT on low-power IoT networks which is mainly discussed at IETF. However, it might be useful to add a paragraph either in the main body or in the Appendix to capture your analysis discussed here. I don't have any other comments. Best regards, -Samita On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:41 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > 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> 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 >> >> >> 原始邮件 >> *发件人:*SamitaChakrabartiviaDatatracker >> *收件人:*iot-directorate@ietf.org; >> *抄送人:*draft-ietf-rift-applicability.all@ietf.org;last-call@ietf.org; >> 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 >> >> 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)