Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B33E47 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:59:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: References: 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 Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 15:00:03 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Pascal Thubert (pthubert) 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 , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAl1tLmYACgkQgItw+93Q 3WUL5Qf9Fs+6dBWXkS6xb6VOPkChKztdMGANQ0iSdvV4EPDX/blcKK9/1YhlgkNn XU/ph408XEFvMWkiUjEWHYa+Jy6rDwOs39JbS4B/+0NL/cqTGg7sKeFoHx5fPeTB 12/wOh8X9iClcz7fTqAPo93rCoFJnDS9JgDYQXs7hhtrzWmB9YzzjTz/8Z5+HmGj NtcHyCAfPeg8DnkYs4Ez2Rp+keYZW7dYZjF3SSppKougT1x0MQQTrFSpj8eXnct3 nXvoWpPyuZOvXcbAP+qYWjax6+fd9uel99bwqdks7xUSXnSYcHnmif/dpWhISaYA 5rPIqbWPb3wZtfbwFUjN2uDIPmjH0Q== =Xn3S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--