Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Tue, 24 May 2016 10:23 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 96A9A12B057 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 afJrmd_6M7WI for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net (lb3-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net [194.109.24.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9256C12B014 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.217]) by smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net with ESMTP id yANt1s00B4h15BW01ANt3a; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:22:53 +0200
Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-65-44.w90-0.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.0.40.44]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Tue, 24 May 2016 12:22:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:22:53 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUe=t7MwkVAUd33+tz_M7J6sqmHKahCQsiBm_e86eHb6cA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <09c3e3fc17b5de9b7366d226c034da28@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUePiV+_Nd+f-H-x_zNoTgkS0Cqe1rq7qD7ie_H3MyOorw@mail.gmail.com> <bc96b8913fff031fc1f41eedfdb6bee3@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUe=t7MwkVAUd33+tz_M7J6sqmHKahCQsiBm_e86eHb6cA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1747ba1478659868c3b715ff8b807c6c@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (SZ+Z11pKN1A415Z1qlvEH+ahlfvyd+Tj)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/5ZVk5qFpn1ue2n6IZPQVWBqusrY>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:23:26 -0000

Hi,

that means writing "one RPL instance" in figure 3 in stead of "RPL 
instance" to remove that ambiguity.
Writing in the use case section a phrase as the one below will be more 
than sufficient for me.

peter

Ines  Robles schreef op 2016-05-24 12:16:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> We are just considering here one RPLInstance.
> 
> Working with different RPLInstances, involves deeply analysis, which
> we could do in the future. But, actually I dont know if it is
> possible/useful to send a message from one RPL Instance to another one
> , since for example a RPL node may belong to multiple RPL Instances,
> and it may act as a router in some and as a leaf in others[1], for
> this reason it does not make sense to me sending packet from one
> RPLInstance to other RPLInstance. Besides the control messages has one
> field for RPLInstanceID, it does not have RPLInstanceID origen or
> RPLInstanceID dst.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Ines
> 
> [1] RFC6550. Section 5. RFC 6550 describes only how a single instance
> behaves
> 
> 2016-05-24 12:17 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>;:
> 
>> I also did not see a mapping of flow from one RPL instance to
>> another instance.
>> 
>> I do not understand this. Could you please clarify?
> 
>  A node belonging to one RPL instance sends a message to a node
> belonging to another RPL instance.
> This seems possible in Figure 3, with 3 RPL instances?
> 
> If possible, it means an additional use case.
> 
> Peter