IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] DCO Invalidation triggered from ancestor node

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 11:39 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 866A912013B for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 04:39:51 -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=CRFIPhPn; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=hIzodC0l
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 QT8_T5PFKblM for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 04:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A6C2120134 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 04:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8380; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557401989; x=1558611589; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=zB3jd/nfWVJ0zzp4dwUqkcWjCSKPql4Al0J8FXeioQg=; b=CRFIPhPn5RweExnEgISkwFMMKnxIdUDyhcXo9RKurTSxTVfrJsTwEzig U4B5noYJB3nw15yriiNG0guDFXLb+4RJZVzoMd2zSbYuMOUDuC7jPgdjF K0bmlD34qDnMLvDg5/KTxrZ96f8nGpYSKEDqCh4zIw+iNb4yTu/LApKK3 4=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:DxetQBPn0hDju/41LOcl6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEu6w/l0fHCIPc7f8My/HbtaztQyQh2d6AqzhDFf4ETBoZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBjjMP73ZSEgAOxJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ATAAD5ENRc/5hdJa1kGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUwMBAQEBCwGBDi9QA2lVIAQLKAqHTgOOfYJXfpFahE2BLoEkA1QJAQEBDAEBJQgCAQGEQAKCCCM2Bw4BAwEBBAEBAgEEbRwMhUoBAQEEEhsTAQE4DwIBCBEEAQEvMh0IAQEEEwgagwGBHU0DHQECDKIPAoE1iF+CIIJ5AQEFhQMYgg8DBoEyAYRkhmkXgUA/gRFGghc1PoJhAoFjK4MPgiaSJpUgCQKCCYYdgT+LEZVXknKOKQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBVgsmgVZwFYMngg8MF4NMilNygSmNQAGBIAEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,449,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="557037589"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 May 2019 11:39:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (xch-rcd-020.cisco.com [173.37.102.30]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x49Bdgum006754 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 11:39:42 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (173.37.102.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 9 May 2019 06:39:41 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 9 May 2019 06:39:41 -0500
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 9 May 2019 06:39:41 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=dQRqbVt3fnKBnZxg9gH/QEI1wCKfzYD6ul7Semxugcg=; b=hIzodC0lebKJ+OKkj43Q1PeLAO6vHm+WY1nINO46UfI7nwhJVbfvSLFkH7QD1ICP0gYSy7HcuafhJD4fjo1HMepvUhRgOZRgyc0z84aIZp3Y9nhrDjRME7KfWBxUVOwEINWyyKI9vgzDeyf3ef7h0M67VSF8CD601rzK/WtAYQc=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB3918.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.180.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1856.12; Thu, 9 May 2019 11:39:40 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::68f6:21c8:b681:c73]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::68f6:21c8:b681:c73%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1856.012; Thu, 9 May 2019 11:39:40 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DCO Invalidation triggered from ancestor node
Thread-Index: AdUFW++4O9eJo3SBSoOtuTjMRFa1bAA/pH7w
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 11:38:41 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 9 May 2019 11:35:32 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB356526B9DCE8337DDEA37DC1D8330@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DE89061@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DE89061@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.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: [173.38.220.38]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 90244791-7681-4b4e-a483-08d6d47305b9
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB3918;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3918:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB39188A46211251285CDF38DCD8330@MN2PR11MB3918.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 003245E729
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(396003)(199004)(189003)(6116002)(790700001)(86362001)(3846002)(25786009)(236005)(256004)(6306002)(54896002)(53936002)(186003)(229853002)(6246003)(71190400001)(71200400001)(5660300002)(81156014)(14454004)(8676002)(8936002)(81166006)(478600001)(33656002)(966005)(316002)(2906002)(76176011)(7696005)(6916009)(99286004)(55016002)(7736002)(26005)(74316002)(9686003)(66946007)(66476007)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(73956011)(76116006)(102836004)(6506007)(53546011)(52536014)(68736007)(476003)(66066001)(446003)(11346002)(606006)(6436002)(486006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3918; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX: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: 0YYf+aQdsWaffx/CE58wY4f8BeSesEMj5iDe5IFb/SKO/I7A3wjj6ieFlXK1JFQ4xjPiX+n6OrG/MxALr05zTsjTIZeLDrWwI0hjEjQT415Odo5lu16/KdYJTQutI9IMD0cdb4AUFAjHJ8z/YOAJkKlaE32t5PMqI/P8VwpJoKxBhmRF/YNV8ogvAa2/r9lBMfo5AFuK62rtQN8fQSYpYZy5jACixWaETL/IOMc/4MrG4B5hZ5IeMgyTvGkXB73EeYF4zuEO2uB6phuBd8d3rgRKMn0sjKSbPvxWD7zhuKFefXo7mxfbfocCuj5y4QEXMv3Jkc+m+flYVIvnCrpaK3NW8QZIDGXEr0BzSjSu+YryT3jmtxBQj5Oo71QbutYwotQhAKe2qvJB/rvvoq+uNYnG/fZ2vQZY5C7F+sTk5pM=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB356526B9DCE8337DDEA37DC1D8330MN2PR11MB3565namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 90244791-7681-4b4e-a483-08d6d47305b9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 May 2019 11:39:39.9862 (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: MN2PR11MB3918
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.30, xch-rcd-020.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/DAZCE6MD8bkILrVpl5974OAgOwk>
Subject: Re: [Roll] DCO Invalidation triggered from ancestor node
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, 09 May 2019 11:39:51 -0000

Hello Rahul:

It is possible that node D in your picture sends a same DAO (same path seq) via both B and C. An unsolicited DCO sent to upon the first DAO received by B could collision with the DAO via C and create race conditions. E.g. a node destroys a route upon DCO seq 5 and recreates it right after when the DAO same seq 5 comes in. Packets in flight will be sent back with a flag in the RPI or destroyed. Not good.

Note: RPL has a datapath detection for broken routes so if it is effectively being used, the path via C would eventually go away based on the flag above.

So I do not favor unsolicited DCOs, and if done, there should be a timer associated to it to make sure that no DAO comes via C. The duration of that timer is hard to fathom...

All the best,

Pascal

From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rahul Arvind Jadhav
Sent: mercredi 8 mai 2019 07:07
To: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: [Roll] DCO Invalidation triggered from ancestor node

Hello ROLL,

During the review of draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-10, there was a point raised by Alvaro which we would like to bring to the WG.

The draft adds DCO msg which allows route invalidation by the common ancestor node. The DCO message is generated by the ancestor node in response to DAO with I-flag (invalidate previous route flag) set in context to the corresponding target. The I-flag is used as a mechanism so that the target is in-charge of its own invalidation. Having said that, the ancestor node has all the state information needed to generate the DCO __unilaterally__.

We would like to understand WG thoughts on "whether this unilateral invalidation from ancestor can be allowed or we should strictly let the ancestor node generate DCO in response to DAO with I-flag set."

Am not quoting pros/cons of the approaches, because this might bias the thinking and it would be nice to have different perspectives.

A diagram to aid understanding: https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/unilateral-dco.md

Any feedback will be very useful and appreciated.

Thanks,
Rahul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email