IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 04 July 2019 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 28D7B120183 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 2cqljQkq3Gqn for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (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 E7E7A12003F for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 200116b82ccfc400fd192d294e4f8a25.dip.versatel-1u1.de ([2001:16b8:2ccf:c400:fd19:2d29:4e4f:8a25]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1hizXo-0000HF-5s; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 13:04:52 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswJ0TozAJCa4o0nJOvGToi-324M4CY9beWWQmOB-Cp6PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 13:04:51 +0200
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <781F0E6E-5F97-49C4-8E5C-3933088D87E7@kuehlewind.net>
References: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF0BFA2@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESswJ0TozAJCa4o0nJOvGToi-324M4CY9beWWQmOB-Cp6PQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1562238298;a003cc3b;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1hizXo-0000HF-5s
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/4txOQH6WBVMrtGjKkJS9wog7IJk>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 11:05:00 -0000

Hi,

My request wasn’t to specify this in detail for every scenario, it was to set boundaries about what's safe to do. The 3 seconds I mentions are the recommendation given in RFC8085, however, if you have a good reason to use different values that possible but it would be good to provide more reasoning then about when it is still safe to use the values and when it should be avoided.

Mirja


> On 4. Jul 2019, at 12:44, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On June 27, 2019 at 1:54:11 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (pthubert@cisco.com) wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
>> RPL is designed to operate in very different environment, and some LLNs can be very slow, very lossy or even both. This is why RFC 6550 refrains from being too specific.
>> Maybe it is good enough to add text indicating that the values used for DCO are expected to be similar/consistent with those used in DAO?
> I agree with Pascal.  In fact, the diversity of environments not only makes it very hard to be too specific, but it is one of the reasons the WG has produced Applicability Statements for them: not all deployments are the same.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email