Re: RFC6550 (RPL) and RFC6775 (IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for 6LoWPANs)
Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org> Sun, 31 May 2020 11:11 UTC
Return-Path: <edepa@ieee.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA0E3A07B6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2020 04:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ieee.org
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 aBF5YTj7qMnD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2020 04:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 849773A07D1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 May 2020 04:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id c12so6451697qkk.13 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 May 2020 04:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VajnotiLb2cpMGnn9gz3itBQlBx4noecnB58w8BY7CI=; b=fqUj+1eJE+W9bXAPNBy/aEhyjgWTkDci3voD81GR70NXPwvTN7KwBDWTtNTblL8qWq 07Sy0ywb9q/0dxQWn0VtJV5E04tcKMnkMueAMy+If1e2IeqUGKHb1QwcnDeTAyN7EFjp iERfrREksgPCSIuZV4jORC6MDUFQnjlquK3Nc=
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=VajnotiLb2cpMGnn9gz3itBQlBx4noecnB58w8BY7CI=; b=KTukx83aM3+EKOm86+QLKhfmo67qOy2cDN9pvgnFdu6Z7BMf14MtQmYz9Cfh78WR+s H8Xwu+qv5f0BbeIXvzeBJdqVNrv9rz1qx+qioQcyZXO63jIctkBtTatKqMGEZAfO/+Ns 1TxP5XezjU4Fkufas2TIBcTdNGZcrz0r7unNilZWzXnsnl1o7SxLdv0lyHWc5y7uGWgx ueczVjU9dmw2R2STXBiE36qm/YzWNCyEK+WlifhXK7ccKnOphf+toU2f6H6VI4MyOkqM /YozmloBo+QZY4knEEEgLd1zxgcCHYJ73O/BZxdXK4R3VIPewjslaSetl3olP6qkM2RN xjHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532jgCQBYHrk1DHA8QTZl8Txm6pozxMpUnCo4+RrtShwWGUtMgIX ZxXtOmnQioKhsw//MabSmMFLpjuPTJd60qDctI1eoJfPvUo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxca3F6S9lAQPtvpnYLZgzDYkrOuLlzqyMt99CLYeJ3OCYtQyT+NdGo8JlhulRGKHsN64h/dRlsqNOf2km19ko=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1321:: with SMTP id p1mr15391917qkj.476.1590923488137; Sun, 31 May 2020 04:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAcx0vACAND_zWVX3GFSPFd8oMidXTHW1GX6awYhBuayYhoNUg@mail.gmail.com> <9CE07FCC-9AC7-4988-97AC-49B0FE8A6B7C@tzi.org> <F979E1A8-32CB-4318-B2F0-FF8267B0CCD0@cisco.com> <CAAcx0vDigAp1xYf5N9oDcZ2DqfhFqy8C0P2xSs0irFOVUbTXnw@mail.gmail.com> <F2DADA8B-9388-4A62-B4A5-53670F57E794@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F2DADA8B-9388-4A62-B4A5-53670F57E794@cisco.com>
From: Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 13:10:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAcx0vCgtQR0vsAfpeZCy=ozjrp7YSC4U2sb3Ff5jKv5sF13qA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC6550 (RPL) and RFC6775 (IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for 6LoWPANs)
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000060469405a6efbd11"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/efCjY7juZo98PgABOprOTKWc7Rc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 31 May 2020 11:13:05 -0000
Pascal, thank you, the draft at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless/ is very informative. You hit the nail on the head with your suggestion of confusion between the congruence of link and subnet. However, I followed one of the references (RFC4903) in your draft and it does not help that it (RFC4903) points to RFC4291's assertion that: "Currently IPv6 continues the IPv4 model that a subnet prefix is associated with one link" RFC4903 further states that: "clearly, the notion of a multi-link subnet would be a change to the existing IP model.". I confess: your assertion in the draft that: "In Route-Over Multi-link subnets (MLSN) [RFC4903], routers federate the links between nodes that belong to the subnet, the subnet is not on-link and it extends beyond any of the federated links" is news to me. Best regards, Etienne On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 1:39 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > Hello Etienne Victor > > Maybe you’re confusing link and a subnet? > > This is discussed at length here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless/ > > RPL can route inside a subnet using host routes. This is how a multi link > subnet can be made to work... > > Please let me know if the draft above helped and whether it is clear > enough. The best way for that discussion would be to cc 6MAN. > > Keep safe, > > Pascal > > Le 30 mai 2020 à 10:03, Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org> a > écrit : > > > Thank you Carsten, and thank you Pacal. Your replies are valuable and > packed with insight. > > I'll wrap up with how I interpret RPL's behaviour in terms of IP hops. > > On one hand, RFC6775 defines a route-over topology as follows: > "A topology where hosts are connected to the 6LBR through the use of > intermediate layer-3 (IP) routing. > Here, hosts are typically multiple IP hops away from a 6LBR. > The route-over topology typically consists of a 6LBR, a set of 6LRs, and > hosts." > If RPL is route-over by definition, then RFC6775 would imply that there > are typically multiple IP hops between a leaf and the border router. > > On the other hand, there at least two contradictions (which I justify > after stating them): > (a) RFC6550 states that "RPL also introduces the capability to bind a > subnet together with a common prefix and to route within that subnet." > (b) Reduction of a DODAG to a single subnet prefix, albeit only only one > parent-child relationship deep, is clearly shown at Contiki-NG's Github > page (deep dive section). > > The hinge on which my understanding revolves is that an IP hop traverses a > router and ***results in a change of prefix of the link on which the packet > travels*** : > > --------<incoming packet; link prefix = p1>------><router> > --------<outgoing packet; link prefix = p2>------> > > With RPL, the "hop" would look like as shown below: > > --------<incoming packet; link prefix = p1>------<router> > --------<outgoing packet; link prefix = p1>------ > > There seems to be a change in the meaning associated with "IP hop". > I guess that I can reconcile both cases through the observation that RPL > actually does apply to a single, NBMA link and therefore the IP prefix > ***is*** the same. > Then again, calling the RPL device involved in the packet forwarding by > the name "router" feels like an uncomfortable stretch. > Don't routers sit at the meeting point of different layer 2 links? > > > Cheers, > > Etienne > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:39 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < > pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hello Etienne >> >> You may see ND as the host to * interface for any network and RPL as the >> router to router interface when the network is NBMA. >> >> Some of us cared about the interworking. >> >> Look at the RPL Unaware leaf I-draft and you’ll see that I’m sure. >> >> Keep safe, >> >> Pascal >> >> > Le 29 mai 2020 à 20:28, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> a écrit : >> > >> > Hi Etienne, >> > >> > I’m also not sure many of the classical network operators assembled in >> NANOG work with 6LoWPANs today, but I still can answer your question. >> > >> >> While trying to build a holistic view of LoWPANs, I'm consulting the >> IETF's informational and standards documents. >> >> >> >> I'm struck by the impression that, despite the significance of >> RFC6775's extension of Neighbor Discovery(ND) to low-power and lossy >> networks (LLNs), >> >> it is largely ignored by RFC6550 (RPL), with little to no reference to >> the ontological plane created in RFC6775's terminology section. >> > >> > Yes, you could say that. >> > >> > ND (Neighbor discovery) describes interfaces between hosts and between >> hosts and routers. >> > 6LoWPAN-ND does not use host-to-host interfaces (different from >> Ethernet, all traffic goes over routers, which RFC 4861 already forsaw in >> the L — on-link — bit, which isn’t set in 6LoWPAN-ND). >> > >> > RFC 6550 was completed at a time when many people who came in from the >> WSN (wireless sensor network) world thought they could get away with a >> network that is wholly composed of routers. >> > Even the “leaf” nodes in the RPL world were participating in the >> routing protocol and therefore didn’t really need a host-router interface. >> There was no separate host-router interface in that world, because there >> were no non-router hosts. >> > >> >> (a) router advertisements and router solicitations are substituted by >> DAG information objects (DIO) and DAG information solicitations (DIS) >> > >> > Right, DIO and DAO are router-to-router messages. If there are no >> hosts (and routers don’t bootstrap themselves as hosts), you don’t need ND. >> > >> >> (b) the terms "mesh-under" and "route-over" (widely cited), defined in >> RFC6775, are absent from RFC6550 >> > >> > RFC6550 is route over by definition. Actually, the term was coined by >> the people working closely with the RPL development; RFC 6775 does >> appropriate it as 6LoWPAN-ND is applicable in either case. >> > >> >> (c) jarringly: RFC6775 describes the route-over topologies as >> multi-IP-hop, while RFC6550 gathers DODAG nodes within the confines of the >> same IPv6 prefix as their border router - no multiple IP hops. >> > >> > I’m not sure where you get this interpretation: RFC 6550 (RPL) is very >> much about IP hops. >> > Maybe you mean the address architecture that was defined explicitly in >> RFC 6775; RFC 6550 does not really say much about addresses. >> > >> > Note that the RPL people have since proceeded to (at least partially) >> embrace the host-router concept from the IP architecture; RFC 8505 is an >> update to RFC 6775 that makes 6LoWPAN-ND more palatable to RPL people. >> > >> > I have CCed Pascal Thubert who, as a co-author to all three RFCs, >> certainly will have another perspective on this. >> > >> > Grüße, Carsten >> > >> > > > -- > Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale > Assistant Lecturer > Department of Communications & Computer Engineering > Faculty of Information & Communication Technology > University of Malta > Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale > > -- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
- Re: RFC6550 (RPL) and RFC6775 (IPv6 Neighbor Disc… Etienne-Victor Depasquale
- Re: RFC6550 (RPL) and RFC6775 (IPv6 Neighbor Disc… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: RFC6550 (RPL) and RFC6775 (IPv6 Neighbor Disc… Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
- RE: RFC6550 (RPL) and RFC6775 (IPv6 Neighbor Disc… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- RE: RFC6550 (RPL) and RFC6775 (IPv6 Neighbor Disc… Templin (US), Fred L