IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Tue, 12 October 2021 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
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 A6EB13A0D1B; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
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 tGmOlEFxYvqO; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x929.google.com (mail-ua1-x929.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::929]) (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 BFB913A0D1F; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x929.google.com with SMTP id i15so1621235uap.0; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=m3Zt2mEhKzRmWzb/8/2T9o/XqMIO6ZmultSpVZyLcds=; b=PlFlNZQFfKcSCTK4AtIWnL90svXeQCAYB/qUNTB4FYscJNS07TEWgCZcuDsR9PKjoH omj5MiiWGTPwats7li4frmms3/A9F6caF/zJDtwuRaq4iOBEZOFBASHkZnZTFJL6O9ET 6YqsIp70PPIIU0xLaospDuUkZSvaaVF4frWSdQFigPOb+FIo5qC7C3YRjxUpdKpjezEo ob8kY8pG5RE68ZbjclmeVY30/i00nsI66rZh+ZRLRr1yytdg/yGaKPAeVdUBXMVts3Sl MI/D+rEX0gIN0sLsW71OnMzFmahcn5GWMUvgsLpvjwu8CvsFSTH1TmVbhZcwyUlVPH1V hj4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m3Zt2mEhKzRmWzb/8/2T9o/XqMIO6ZmultSpVZyLcds=; b=eUe+93Xyl4hqRuveP3J3lYls4cvJ80FtnN1UbQHtdnfZSpnf8VZvV0zSN9u7DsD+zQ fisIatU0g4O2c0cwPfYF9C/+2Xcelh6UqLEyqD0sV+dAjeDXGrzwO+zclbxrG8PVxdNz 4B+K4XZ6gsotpHEyp4VLerc/NK+OPYOGSGQZhSN0cD6MivV462+g5N7bfyWI6/GMZMqw W6eyBEUSlEWGm4Qv99hk2D+hcy0GTmT4uvaPd89ASTZl7rfYs+cPN53rJiwF2kLyAyHh Nuuicl4Ty07aqZL6UT187/osHwid091MMJ5ITzhB3aGwadajYLoZOnRJCb8yhgQS4sJo /j8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vFtIsn8kHdiyjhX28EtxEAZ+KvJ0GHmhHXLV1N0OjkR95onBi wU6RiJU1ykLZnzmeLprVKgqeDxIzFMgIWZOdCbQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzGAInnawjSJbIqIl0PEFhIa5nnFQjko/OLAPJ5D4FNxX2KSsin5EmbDh1EPGFzsh0O0TAiczAdyiDrVxWhVHo=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:e416:: with SMTP id d22mr33355544vsf.41.1634078053419; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CO1PR11MB48817BF59C64D77794A43F36D8B09@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsxLxfNdPE+s11DqiwDuXg7auwVc953kgC_EZ28bugEWrA@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB488152F0F99251ED4B9DB3BFD8B29@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsyeM4Dfy4yQBKitNcfaS7E=2-x8Ly2hLnbmBHcFvg7rrw@mail.gmail.com> <29221.1633883421@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <29221.1633883421@localhost>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 01:33:37 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUcoTvrnhV04q55bGkC93YueSNPY8Tdxw0rOGNz04V4Mgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl.all@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e8cd4b05ce2f717c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/981Wp_gRqywQkjd5ZpFd2Jb-Y_I>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)
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: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 22:34:22 -0000

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 7:30 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > If we’re moving forward with using MOP 4, then this is what we would
> need
>     > (at least):
>
>     > - IANA Considerations: request to add aodv-rpl as a reference in the
>     > registry.
>
>     > - A new section that talks about how the reuse is ok, and any
> consequences
>     > of overlapping.  A requirement to not use both variations in the same
>     > network would be fine too.
>
> Is there an upgrade consideration if we re-use?
> We could also allocate a new MOP,


The current MOP in the doc is 5, I understand this would be the new MOP,
right?


> and deprecate MOP 4, and reuse it later on.
>

I think if we deprecate MOP4, it makes sense to me to assign it to
AODV-RPL, right?


>
> My belief is that there are few deployments of P2P RPL today, and that a
> forklift upgrade of them is acceptable.
>

RIOT OS has implemented P2P RPL
https://api.riot-os.org/group__net__gnrc__rpl__p2p.html
But yes, I have not found further deployments.

 Thanks,
Ines.

>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email