Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo version 5

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 18 July 2016 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 B047B12DA98 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, 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 awV_sq4Fzq7N for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:58:37 -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 4D1C112DFE2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9C5200A7; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:39:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C1B638D1; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:30:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <4fad9a644c561d0a2f632edad1d4beb3@xs4all.nl>
References: <b9e569f12a008245ef824e340f510dff@xs4all.nl> <e4d82623-86e1-efd7-b813-de4dedb2eaf8@gmail.com> <4fad9a644c561d0a2f632edad1d4beb3@xs4all.nl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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 Jul 2016 10:30:26 -0400
Message-ID: <29257.1468852226@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/6ttMULIS2rMgRySP4Qrvswkw7B8>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo version 5
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:58:39 -0000

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>; wrote:
    >> There is the Transit Option for DAOs with the 'E' flag to indicate
    >> that the target address was not learned from rpl.  I would expect that
    >> this 'E' flag is set for all Transit Options in DAOs until it reaches
    >> the root node (recursively).  So the root node should actually be
    >> aware which address was learned from RPL and which not.

    > It is probably worthwhile to describe (remind) in the draft this
    > procedure for the root to learn RPL associated addresses.

Are you are referring to section 6.7.8 of RFC6550, or section 9.4?
The root does not learn adjacency in storing mode, only in non-storing mode.

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