IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: New Version Notification for draft-hui-6man-rpl-option-00.txt

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Sun, 30 May 2010 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1068F3A693F for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 May 2010 13:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oLwh8exNhuun for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 May 2010 13:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63EED3A693C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 May 2010 13:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,328,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="116349812"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2010 20:46:40 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4UKkecu000784; Sun, 30 May 2010 20:46:40 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-114.cisco.com ([72.163.62.156]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 30 May 2010 15:46:40 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-hui-6man-rpl-option-00.txt
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 15:46:37 -0500
Message-ID: <AF742F21C1FCEE4DAB7F4842ABDC511C01B74191@XMB-RCD-114.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B4F66743-F927-41F6-BEBD-A67CC9CD8753@cs.stanford.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-hui-6man-rpl-option-00.txt
Thread-Index: Acr/UYYNeLbhTGO/RJiGnrvYoOlD/QA5e5SA
References: <5193DD89-79F3-4AB4-A866-81DD9DF3A37B@archrock.com><ADFD1D34-0FC1-41A0-AE9C-7C6FFF6419B4@cisco.com> <B4F66743-F927-41F6-BEBD-A67CC9CD8753@cs.stanford.edu>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>, JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2010 20:46:40.0675 (UTC) FILETIME=[34A7F730:01CB0039]
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 20:46:55 -0000

If RFC 2711 already defines a Router Alert Option to use, why do we need
a new option in the Hop by Hop option for roll as specified by this
document?  I suggest we just use a new code value for roll with RFC 2711
and be done with it.  See section 2.1 of RFC 2711.  Here is a list of
what IPv6 protocols already use the Router Alert Option.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values/ipv6-routeralert
-values.xhtml

RFC 2711 also already lists the security concerns with use of the Router
Alert Option.  This document is repeating the same security concern.
Further one should look at

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rahman-rtg-router-alert-considerations-
03


Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Philip Levis
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 1:08 PM
To: JP Vasseur
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
draft-hui-6man-rpl-option-00.txt


On May 17, 2010, at 6:18 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> This is to re-activate our discussion during the last IETF  
> meetings. Feed-back are very welcome since we would like to move  
> forward as soon as possible, this proposed extension is indeed  
> critical for RPL to move forward.
>
> Many Thanks.
>
> JP and Jonathan.

I strongly support this draft; it is a make-or-break extension,  
without which RPL will not be an effective protocol. There is  
extensive experimental evidence from many LLN deployments and  
testbeds that the mechanisms it enables (datapath validation) are  
critical.

I think Jonathan has done an excellent job of narrowly defining what  
the option can do: containing it within a RPL domain addresses most  
of the major concerns with hop-by-hop options.

Phil
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email