Re: [Roll] some comments / questions on dao-projection
peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Wed, 04 January 2017 08:40 UTC
Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1557D1294A4 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:40:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 pWfEc0XTE0cK for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:40:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net [194.109.24.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4340A129444 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:40:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.204]) by smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net with ESMTP id U8gd1u00E4QBLo2018gdKp; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 09:40:38 +0100
Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-203-53.w92-145.abo.wanadoo.fr ([92.145.82.53]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Wed, 04 Jan 2017 09:40:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 09:40:37 +0100
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <18041.1482598942@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <c0985e7e40220d98906818db3674a8cd@xs4all.nl> <18041.1482598942@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <b988d99ce2c5eb290046192133687a78@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/37xOhEIF06pU1UQ_0TrZiXrwpQ8>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: [Roll] some comments / questions on dao-projection
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, 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, 04 Jan 2017 08:40:43 -0000
Hi Michael, thanks for the reactions to the now adopted document. I can open tickets as appropriate if chairs direct. Please, proceed as you suggest with tickets. Especially the security one needs a ticket of its own. Many thanks, Peter > > Let me leave editorial comments to the end of this email. > > 1) Didn't we have an errata about default lifetime units when there was > no > configuration option? > > No, we didn't. I wonder if this plagues us everywhere, that 6550 > should > have specified a default Lifetime units in the absense of a > Configuration > option. > > > 2) RFC6551 reference: > >> or the RPL routing extensions specified in Routing for Path >> Calculation in LLNs [RFC6551]. Based on that information, the root > > huh? the title of 6551 is: Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation in > Low-Power and Lossy Networks > > so, what exactly did you mean here? > > 3) does dao-lifetime eclipse need for no path dao? > > 4) resource calculations > > "but how the root figures the amount of > resources that are available is out of scope." > > I disagree. I would like some mechanism to be in scope. > And you suggest NMS and 6551 later on... which seems to make it in > scope. > I'm not sure how 6551 can be used here. > > 5) section 4 needs subsections! Too many concepts in one heading. > > 6) On the use of a new MOP. > > Are we sure that we need a new MOP? Could we use Non-Storing MOP, with > some indication of which nodes speak DAO-Projection? Could that work? > > Or do you really want to force a forklift upgrade here? > Why does the entire network need to be aware of this new mode? > > 7) page 8 is too dense! > > 8) I just didn't understand the english here. > I think that "last node" needs a better term. Maybe colour > the nodes or otherwise mark them and use those terms? > > The last node in the segment may have another information to reach > the target(s), such as a connected route or an already installed > projected route. If it does not have such a route then the node > > 9) running out of resources: > > it seems that it ought to be said that the new node might not be one > that the > last node had previously talked to. There is the issue of both routing > storage (from storing mode), but also neighbor cache resources. > > 10) more hard to understand statements... > >> For the targets that could be located, last node in the segment >> generates a DAO to its loose predecessor in the segment as indicated >> in the list of Via Information options. > > woe! What? > > 11) create new section on route cleanup > >> A NULL lifetime in the Via Information option along the segment is >> used to clean up the state. > > needs new 4.x section on cleanup. > > 12) move / replicate diagrams into this section, and use numbered > diagrams > >> In the example below, say that there is a lot of traffic to nodes 55 > > new section, move diagram here. > > make figure 5 and 6 more like figure 3, numbered, etc. > > 13) Q: retransmission timers, etc. appropriate for these projected DAO > messages? > How do we handle packet loss? > > 14) Security Considerations will need to be written. > > The security threats documents details very specific threats, and > indicating > if this protocol changes things is important. Also, some consideration > SHOULD be given to when A=1. Are the affects of the new flow of > control messages? > > So for instance Security Considerations should probably consider how > projected DAO messages could be abused by > a) rogue nodes > b) via replay of messages > c) if use of projected DAO messages could in fact deal with any > threats? > > > ======== START of EDITORIAL comments > > Change: > Additionally, RPL storing mode is optimized or Point-to-Multipoint > (P2MP), root to leaves and Multipoint-to-Point (MP2P) leaves to root > operations, whereby routes are always installed along the RPL DODAG. > > To: > Additionally, RPL storing mode is optimized for Point-to-Multipoint > (P2MP), (..root to leaves and Multipoint-to-Point (MP2P) leaves to > root > operations), whereby routes are always installed along the RPL > DODAG. > > the part () is worded too poorly for me to parse. Can you fix this? > > Transversal Peer to Peer (P2P) routes in a RPL network will > generally > suffer from some stretch since routing between 2 peers always > happens > > What means "stretch" here? > > section 2: NSM -- I think this is a new term? > (it's not in RFC6550 or 7102. I'm all for this term) > > section 3: I found the comments about factoring to be too soon. > Some explanation of mechanism should preceed this part of the > discussion. Just let section 3 be about the formats/contents. > > I suggest text like this: > In NSM the TIO option is used in the DAO message to indicate the > immediate > parent of a given path. The TIO applies to the Target options that > immedially preceed it, and multiple TIOs may be present to indicate > multiple routes. > > This specification... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
- [Roll] call for adoption of dao-projection draft peter van der Stok
- Re: [Roll] call for adoption of dao-projection dr… peter van der Stok
- Re: [Roll] call for adoption of dao-projection dr… Lilian Maina
- Re: [Roll] call for adoption of dao-projection dr… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] call for adoption of dao-projection dr… Alexander Pelov
- Re: [Roll] call for adoption of dao-projection dr… Satish Anamalamudi
- Re: [Roll] call for adoption of dao-projection dr… peter van der Stok
- [Roll] some comments / questions on dao-projection Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] some comments / questions on dao-proje… peter van der Stok