[Roll] projected route or not?
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 23 May 2019 08:21 UTC
Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 624C5120176 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=WadBm6Rj; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=vskDQR7g
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 MpuW5snKAfGy for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 024FC12019F for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7848; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558599707; x=1559809307; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=6MxWrlBnMoqK47bWmcdQOVfcgYjChq34QlxT/4jIY3g=; b=WadBm6RjoOOozyLrkC8VE2hPJiEqDacNVD+7FD+fKSfmA6nEFxXayfC1 KYtFvxNfQOqm4CAqYf3jFvmm/Ie12cOdpb3GMhy2NjJ0SA8X8SBEYO5Oj CpoGWAXYIwxyD8by4r6TyzQOcpHvcNYO3xdzyIwHr/J3v7hvfIgqjgR89 U=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:nKoF3xDLA8lDJIfcNtqFUyQJPHJ1sqjoPgMT9pssgq5PdaLm5Zn5IUjD/qs03kTRU9Dd7PRJw6rNvqbsVHZIwK7JsWtKMfkuHwQAld1QmgUhBMCfDkiuNOLqciY3BthqX15+9Hb9Ok9QS47z
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BwAADfVuZc/4UNJK1lHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBUgYBAQsBgQ4vJCwDaVUgBAsoh1oDjnWSM4J9hFCBLhSBEANUCQEBAQwBAS0CAQGEQAKCMSM1CA4BAwEBBAEBAgEEbRwMhU0WGxMBATcBEQGBACYBBA4NEweDAYEdTQMdAQKaYAKBN4hfgiCCeQEBBYUOGIIPCYE0AYtQF4FAP4ERRocWOoM6giaSZZVbCQKCDYx0hjKCHpQYjgqUNwIEAgQFAg4BAQWBUAE2gVdwFYMngg+DcIpTcoEpjToBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,502,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="275472920"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 May 2019 08:21:45 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (xch-aln-015.cisco.com [173.36.7.25]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4N8Lj5V008861 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 08:21:45 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 23 May 2019 03:21:45 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 23 May 2019 03:21:44 -0500
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 23 May 2019 04:21:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=iu8i8dDPnbHLYLLHaNPsgnV/limLWWRBdluYX9ZGSY4=; b=vskDQR7gpKgXz9ukvwBwrYBKO5MEIeRCOO59KwriAi/cFIt3TwzW7ByxvOGO+abt5+LczTi3SyGSxnCQoKfoM3PLCDWf5AiqO3DLvB8P+fiJoaUoZXTnpcwYs0dit1/YgvF97R2BXLfmsykR+dQh28FKUAD2bKvsZ2FqOvWG0l4=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB4030.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.181.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.17; Thu, 23 May 2019 08:21:42 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7cc2:b440:8820:f0fc]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7cc2:b440:8820:f0fc%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1900.020; Thu, 23 May 2019 08:21:42 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
CC: "Li Zhao (liz3)" <liz3@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: projected route or not?
Thread-Index: AdURL1VZEjPfXAzCShqwgXi+tubDCw==
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 08:21:18 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 23 May 2019 06:45:35 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB356535452493E0375D7C9539D8010@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c0:1007::229]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d4611962-9dc1-475a-71a2-08d6df57afc8
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB4030;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4030:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB40301D68B0A60DB8DA01273BD8010@MN2PR11MB4030.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 00462943DE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(376002)(346002)(396003)(189003)(199004)(46003)(86362001)(14454004)(478600001)(8936002)(7736002)(256004)(33656002)(14444005)(55016002)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(6436002)(74316002)(54896002)(6306002)(71190400001)(9686003)(71200400001)(6916009)(6666004)(53936002)(107886003)(476003)(2906002)(486006)(4326008)(25786009)(7696005)(316002)(73956011)(76116006)(6116002)(3480700005)(790700001)(5660300002)(64756008)(66556008)(66446008)(68736007)(99286004)(102836004)(66476007)(186003)(66946007)(52536014)(6506007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4030; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: ejRO05fT7x9i789hHt0MdtlZ/013eCr62Tw5uDXJEqKzDFPjYOjNu5Dc1SbFsgWgUoWrMRqEnCK4BooaCWMHNVomR+JdIs1//LOQ31S/P8JzZDN1d2bzT96Mg0B2nRtaAXdizqeh1e0PBwlmqR6GICJeQqVTSZ/93fYpKDW5GLSXG53w/Cj9yGi5vuKApYxemm89vrKEuwB/JruGxNW2gP5QLJz6tOIZMM3uNrS25OqorSmGuZ06FwOWx5jk9xxEnDOfVi61xqrBT5LVzJ/2/FeA3Y4/3UFTr3SaH6nxvB8zhRfLKTQzKb9irYQFMdCn0f/+gOpOPHNuGZ+SKpcjLAG6Qvy8mfMIz+faQxbJxWGPAzfSs71HeJF1L2fUoH5qOv62Lbx7ClgMZeQWsCgzGRMXJm1BdFc31THQdPVeHAg=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB356535452493E0375D7C9539D8010MN2PR11MB3565namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d4611962-9dc1-475a-71a2-08d6df57afc8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 May 2019 08:21:42.1982 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4030
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.25, xch-aln-015.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/AxxsFN2LC0zEC_-dJdcqTsXOPDM>
Subject: [Roll] projected route or not?
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, 23 May 2019 08:21:57 -0000
Dear all In case of an error in a P-route, the node that discovers an error notifies the root with a new ICMP "Error in Projected Route". In the case of a storing mode PDAO, this is determined by the type of the route with the highest precedence in the routing able. But for non-storing, it is hard to fathom. Possible solutions: * it could be implicit for any source route that does not originate from the root. But then, this may create a confusion in a future specification. * update RFC 6550, RFC 6553 and RFC 8138 to add a flag in the RPI indicating projected route * update RFC 6550, RFC 6554 and RFC 8138 to add a flag in the SRH indicating projected route * encode that information implicitely in the instance ID by telling the nodes that a range of instance IDs are reserved for P DAO * do not use "Error in Projected Route" to the root for non-storing P DAO. RPL has an ICMPv6 "error in Source Routing Header" message that is sent to the source of the packet. But that means that the packet goes to the source which then can notify the root. This is quite inefficient when the network is non storing. * ? What do you think? Pascal
- [Roll] projected route or not? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] projected route or not? Rahul Arvind Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] projected route or not? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)