IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] WG call to adopt draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-03

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 21 February 2013 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.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 5BA7821F8F56 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:45:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B6MBM1Up84wN for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-f42.google.com (mail-vb0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 715B321F8EBC for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ff1so2794772vbb.15 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:45:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=/s9MGdXJ+vHV0XHEF52veMve0VNJZb1TKWZD+xI81L0=; b=p9xnPD8+ziXEnhk3oNEKRIBzAK0Ef13UdxfEJgW4YtSJrsIIgrT3bBrUNQ7aoKKSgW A5kPUupq8lEQKHebg54At5RkX79WD2hPX4rx389h8CgDalfkHQQBvjAKoTAyl6NzxqWX KXFFZrxd7WaDZ0BJ1Nz6ASW822IFWuiFdXFS+4GbE4R0WTS+zQTqi/NjAauD2JqGAT8E tKk8GPkySP4rYWnZppFLDn7GO+tz/d1KRnqFSC+87lAESXlOmG8RPhTK9eIB5t90ayOR ClUDlV1R8O1rGyTUpjwNQscwZAIzwHKxgLtkHnOCkb4wB3epg5XIPD+KvjiT+IWuch+R p6Hw==
X-Received: by 10.52.24.98 with SMTP id t2mr28259711vdf.69.1361468754899; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:45:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:2c51:1311:e123:1b78:f56b:cf9c? ([2001:420:2c51:1311:e123:1b78:f56b:cf9c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l5sm6145345vdi.4.2013.02.21.09.45.52 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <19733.1361468475@sandelman.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:45:50 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <98EE8664-A9D9-4E6D-8A97-D3D2391A3650@gmail.com>
References: <16172.1361386696@sandelman.ca> <CADnDZ889JxVJm8YVPisnd4=a48-Ceqe-JpsYcy8q74GLdfFNWg@mail.gmail.com> <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD0AD4045B@cph-ex1> <29348.1361461221@sandelman.ca> <2696EF02-C90C-484C-854D-D860E5B92627@gmail.com> <19733.1361468475@sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] WG call to adopt draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-03
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 21 Feb 2013 17:45:56 -0000

On Feb 21, 2013, at 12:41 PM 2/21/13, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

> 
>>>>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> writes:
>    Anders> One day, when there also exists an RPL home & building
>    Anders> applicability document, one _could_ draft an evaluation
>    Anders> document; comparing the applicability of the two protocols.
> 
>>> Based upon recent clarifications to P2P-RPL, it seems that it is
>>> not possible to use P2P-RPL without prior using rooted RPL,
> 
>    Ralph> How so?
> 
> 1) we said that LL addressees are not permitted in the P2P's DRO.
> 2) we said that P2P can not have a PIO, so the P2P process can not 
>   number the nodes.
> 
> Therefore, in order to use P2P RPL, there must first have been an RPL
> that provided stable addresses to all nodes.  (I wrote "rooted",
> intending to mean grounded, but probably that's too much)

Why is RPL needed for address assignment?

- Ralph

> 
> -- 
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [ 
> 	
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email