Re: [Roll] how to solve flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Wed, 02 March 2016 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72FFA1B2A19 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 03:55:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 I3ueVkAxereO for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 03:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (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 7299D1AD2EE for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 03:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id k196so199628995vka.0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 03:46:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=ije+YDsT/w5Mpx0QOg7m53PdifVdb0uD0HnRLlThMls=; b=ZKfPEA6djHHmClQe4f/f+gI3H8w+AM9AZzPE6QI2aa6PihDHzSPjLCWj3qZjr9Oou+ YKKh7dVUhL+24SzjoLm4037FYQuTlgKcDy7Q0vYN5pw6cMIW0BvypKqVwW5LuheJw41A rlTZ2s1F4bbUsO9BOk2JndkCqCTT0a+aP9MJuz2330I+89I1FIWM3Eq2/mXvmkznkwdj tWAt60Y2DivQnZBTZk8UbYmsblSeqftOe7IdBEL+QM/OC6p3KfUeYWqGNOhCGaQunTql PDzMCXOZZO0yzSixCqh1jm0D4uJsGWJd/Vc76k5ET36D7uIRUzhMXtgLp+9y2uE4IU0I uBLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=ije+YDsT/w5Mpx0QOg7m53PdifVdb0uD0HnRLlThMls=; b=XWAuyROUOdPUY01aGrBnKzT4xcSdDJG+q7LB1xWQqAu0+gdiitW30ZYLb23QEMyP0t JT89byYBHp24VAQZ4vo1KiSmsPKtCB0JTraEwtrMWTz1BnZZ4RVcSpcK7PHjjKf/Y1Lo 8fwyEQ8yme3j8vtcG4FxWB/pkaW+Zeq7KKEMzWNiRgVT5hTEAEXrvz0Th/qTy1bNux1g 0O8dzDKwjAR4/L2GC3tSi/1J1/dXb1g2MBwOEbKiDtF0X70HTj6B1wxeZnTvBeAYutlh FywzT3TreYtmk5MREPTw0EM7tBNhp3ytwa31RDA5D0FAHiFUjnz4x5oVzCil2Gpi9fYp xlBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJANrPxdxaooydIo/zdkmjsmoZc2ETJAZQywiD1HerSnTMR7xwQULETD/R4hOidwljUNYPYMZXsiu6X1g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.168.135 with SMTP id r129mr19975754vke.7.1456919207583; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 03:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.176.1.19 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 03:46:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9111.1456113115@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <068.083c7610ff2ac4904b0f3d42985de0e5@trac.tools.ietf.org> <083.ab1b0b92eb7919631cac4e82fc5f8d77@trac.tools.ietf.org> <9111.1456113115@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:46:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUe8m3fuQ0bhb3kooFvw0oi_baNv1JDAnO8Yr5yLjb=HjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11414f94d5ac56052d0f6ff9
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/--ySr4qpvKjtGfRpF-Z0ZHGnm4I>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: [Roll] how to solve flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:55:46 -0000

Hi,

The version 01 of the draft was updated with these options.

Please we would like to know your opinion on the possible solutions

Thank you,

The authors,

2016-02-22 5:51 GMT+02:00 Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>ca>:

>
> here are two possible ways to deal with this issue:
>
> 1) Pascal has pointed out that we can use an IPIP header on a hop-by-hop
>    basis, using either link-local addresses, or even GUA addresses, but
>    each IPIP header needs to be added/removed at each hop.
>
> 2) If the definition of the RPI was changed so that it isn't a
>    "discard if not recognized" type.  This change is an incompatible
>    on-the-wire change, and would represent a flag day.
>    However, this change could perhaps be done with the updated 6LoRH
>    compression work, as that is also an incompatible on-the-wire
>    change for which we presently have no way to signal.
>
> 3) These proposals are not mutually exclusive: we could do both.
>
> I'm not looking for "yes, I like proposal X", but rather I'm looking for
> replies of the form of "I can not live with proposal X because Y"
>
>
>