Re: [Roll] [Anima] ACP RPL profile and dynamics

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Hendrik Mahrt <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I'm not quite sure how the type of media or its capability to broadcast
    > interacts with RPL parent selection. The way I understand ACP, IPsec
    > tunnels are established with all link neighbors of the same ACP domain.

Yes.  In a busy L2 broadcast domain, establishing an IPsec tunnel with every
neighbour is probably excessive.  A device should accept many incoming
connections, as there might not be any other device willing to talk to it,
but I think initiating more than about three on a single L2 domain is
probably too much.  There is some work to be done here!

    > This is done prior to RPL coming into action. It is also necessary to
    > exchange RPL ranks with all neighbors. How else would a node determine
    > its parent(s)? I guess afterwards tunnels to neighbors that are neither
    > parent nor child of a node could be closed again, yes.

Yes, bring up the tunnel, send DIOs, listen for DIOs.
I wouldn't close the tunnel afterwards until there was a resource
constraint, but perhaps one might wind up marking the tunnel as "do not
rekey".  The other end may feel different though.

    >> It's a good question, and I assumed that global route repair would
    >> occur periodically, and whenever the NOC found that it couldn't reach
    >> some nodes.  There is probably a gap in knowledge/experience here.

    > The wording in ACP Section 6.12.1.7 is "The DODAG version is only
    > incremented under catastrophic events", therefore I was under the
    > impression global repair would only be done in extreme circumstances,
    > and not periodically.

A link going down in an ISP is probably a catastrophic event.
Maybe the text  needs adjustment.


-- 
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-