IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 18 August 2014 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 4D36F1A6F96; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 CrqT3rY-qxeM; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D1811A6F9A; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B260020028; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:23:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 6FFC463AC9; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:20:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59695638D7; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:20:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
In-Reply-To: <53F2375E.6000501@globis.net>
References: <CAP+sJUeLa9r2otVv41ezg1Om--XzM84w3MOvCyn7bawDA7Oqgw@mail.gmail.com> <69656203-C009-4ABE-BCAD-17622058FEB9@cs.stanford.edu> <53D84C2C.9050709@gmail.com> <140F7EAF-B3B2-4F39-B676-5901457BF494@cs.stanford.edu> <CAMsDxWQTMBWS6GY7q5cT9FVds-obdE45PiLWVEqbV8HMpjbSsA@mail.gmail.com> <47417131-2393-4083-B904-E1983D6AAAA6@tzi.org> <53EE6441.1000908@globis.net> <6ECB70BE-13A7-4C23-B182-C4F0AC2B73D1@cs.stanford.edu> <53EEFEEE.8020505@globis.net> <53EFB719.70508@gmail.com> <53F07B55.7050708@globis.net> <53F10959.2000102@gmail.com> <53F2375E.6000501@globis.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:20:16 -0400
Message-ID: <7414.1408396816@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/2gehtasyab87FZPehoOLHx4haZE
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 21:20:20 -0000

I just want to point out that the RPL Instance ID isn't used for routing
like the MPLS label. RPL nodes still do longest prefix match routing
on IPv6 destination address.

If you had to make an analogy to other technology, it's more like a VLAN
tag being used to pick a virtual router/routing table.

> I would prefer to avoid making the trade off if we don't have to. Who knows
> what future application will use the flow label?

Yes, my response is: "hi, we are the future. Do you mind if we use that
     thing you reserved for us?"

> I'm no RPL expert, but
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-6lo-rpl-mesh-01 seems more elegant
> and avoids all of this discussion.

6lo-rpl-mesh is certainly merits discussion.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status