Re: [Roll] [Anima] ACP RPL profile and dynamics
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 08 September 2022 23:33 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 DE303C14CE44; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.66
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CHBZePXgvfpW; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92CC5C14CE31; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6493558C4AF; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 01:33:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 454654EB9B6; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 01:33:16 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 01:33:16 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Hendrik Mahrt <hendrik.mahrt@kit.edu>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, anima@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Yxp7vCb2z29mL11h@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <861c74d7-4fe0-9b27-6075-faa94bd6ee7a@kit.edu> <43629.1662541964@dooku> <5245fb29-8e3a-79f3-9b64-727e0a12bc66@kit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5245fb29-8e3a-79f3-9b64-727e0a12bc66@kit.edu>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/AwmtvR9VBTLvNzzyICn0DmXGS_U>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [Anima] ACP RPL profile and dynamics
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 08 Sep 2022 23:33:28 -0000
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 12:44:05PM +0200, Hendrik Mahrt wrote: > > On the other hand, a more typical ISP situation is there is a router with > > three or four WAN links, each of which is a p2p ethernet. In that case, > > there is really only one peer on each link, and it makes no sense not to have > > a tunnel up on every interface. > > > > I'm not quite sure how the type of media or its capability to broadcast > interacts with RPL parent selection. The way I understand ACP, IPSec > tunnels are established with all link neighbors of the same ACP domain. > This is done prior to RPL coming into action. Right. Just like any L2 security would happen before RPL exchanges messages. > It is also necessary to > exchange RPL ranks with all neighbors. How else would a node determine > its parent(s)? I guess afterwards tunnels to neighbors that are neither > parent nor child of a node could be closed again, yes. Which IMHO would raise the problem of then being unable to discover all RPL changes from a (closed) RPL neighbor, unless there are clear RPL procedures that indicate whenever a RPL neighbor needs to actively reach out to another RPL neighbor again (hence being able to have signals to re-create the ACP tunnel). > The wording in ACP Section 6.12.1.7 is "The DODAG version is only > incremented under catastrophic events", therefore I was under the > impression global repair would only be done in extreme circumstances, > and not periodically. So my "Root dies" could be seen as a catastrophic event. What then would be the least-catastrophic event that could only be handled with periodic version increase ? Cheers Toerless > Hendrik
- Re: [Roll] [Anima] ACP RPL profile and dynamics Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Roll] [Anima] ACP RPL profile and dynamics Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] [Anima] ACP RPL profile and dynamics Hendrik Mahrt
- Re: [Roll] [Anima] ACP RPL profile and dynamics Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Roll] [Anima] ACP RPL profile and dynamics Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Roll] [Anima] ACP RPL profile and dynamics Hendrik Mahrt
- Re: [Roll] [Anima] ACP RPL profile and dynamics Michael Richardson