IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Published draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-03

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 02 September 2019 14:59 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 499A812026E for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 07:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 Z8w5fkvPxhzb for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 07:59:53 -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 6FF4E12080F for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 07:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AC3380BE for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:58:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B33E47 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:59:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB3558E623D03E8806E7A176A9D8BE0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BYAPR11MB3558E623D03E8806E7A176A9D8BE0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 10:59:50 -0400
Message-ID: <26984.1567436390@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/CFj58nKQoY5g-68uogBjPMzhHNc>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Published draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-03
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: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 15:00:03 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > *   Modified RPL to indicate that Non-Storing signaling MUST be used
    > for External routes signaled by the 'E' flag in the transit
    > option. This will happen even in storing Mode. The reason is to be able
    > to tunnel to the 6LR (that appears as in the Transit option) in order
    > to get rid of RPL artifacts and RFC 8138 compression before the packet
    > is forwarded externally.

This is quite an interesting thing to do, and I think that it brings us
another step step closer to some kind of hybrid storing/non-storing mode.
DAO-projection is obviously the other step.

Many in the WG might not know, but at one point the WG thought that storing and
non-storing operation would be local choices, but it turned out not to work
that way.

    > *   Signal the capability by the root to proxy the EDAR in behalf of
    > the 6LR. Should we use the MOP draft or make it protocol independent
    > with 6CIO so any routing protocol could be used to proxy?

I think we should use the root-announced (non-negotiated) capability.

    > *   Impact on useofrplinfo: the change that the (E flag) =>
    > (non-storing signaling + tunnel to the 6LR)

...

    > Since those specs are not published yet, we could piggy-back the
    > changes there but that means taking the drafts off the RFC editor's
    > hands.

I think that the useofrplinfo change affects only two (maybe) four of the 24
cases, and the case remains where we have an IPv6 Host only.
So I think it is better to Updates: useofrplinfo.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email