Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review

Ines Robles <> Tue, 24 May 2016 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C2A12D0C3 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9qpFOPj1oH9b for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D854D12B05C for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y2so15092101vka.3 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=ubkL883bvgd5ZBone2sbVHd4HNuCy7UBCgDnyAK1PSc=; b=zVXHbQJlrPmEmuC5unW7Pl5FbRlbw1583dbnmj5XUPwJcBXyQCoiSlu6Gqs798jvwE VZ0GkpxWCPkv+j83axndZ59U8zG08iplRx4J/6xuSmo4itR/Cw7x9GKfaLQzoFwLQJYP gVlLyql33gVs0PyHjQR+bgwBHOMHMjI9/ND33BPKORYi6VAi37QBRE/La5MGD5AwWVZB 7LdjS+zHbqUDATgaD5cjyHHSQmjP0wxrpDmd+JAkf8mF14N83NN0OVshlpBg4tkKHRzS II04EueOMfPoZ9UKa4k+cV8hG4td2Mqw5b7R7uYHpoWHYZhF+u5zvdqXH6CNj23jZKyr xPAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=ubkL883bvgd5ZBone2sbVHd4HNuCy7UBCgDnyAK1PSc=; b=kdO3s41ME/fg6DX8b4ai4M3KAfzF78H4U99dW55JXcERMmSSfk8f+31bY1XDWpYyqo 1hgBjzM0rgVJjPNHZCyia5OL7fSuUr31o9z9Z2sCtOOy9pgAuZQ2Ayh3jMjdcHjkp/HR jy6QRgonb5cFP4cZynh0ff1CZpJGlrGu2mIqN7j1JIyP4QdOq8nynhQIOnd/fn0IfT+w bi6IkdlR5rvq+DOjm5SsXZaGa1tHmbEve+2HO3MpF+LL40KG/AoeEvGOf0+gEUdMS0jN YL+cTxbn0AI8kjkc5egovVHdg7cAoW8j330RyyHAg83BFHMizbR3X/6J/DJlz6jf1vLu enpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJLPp1TwNASOgtdOJCs+p0GPjBxrX852MUk/7lWC2p2ZVaq5JlOoKc2os1lj6Yv49ZWb2NLXkAmY4XyOg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id h1mr2030671vke.5.1464084966585; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:16:06 +0300
Message-ID: <>
From: Ines Robles <>
To: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11425eec5abfa8053393d8a9
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:16:09 -0000


Thanks for the clarification.

We are just considering here one RPLInstance.

Working with different RPLInstances, involves deeply analysis, which we
could do in the future. But, actually I dont know if it is possible/useful
to send a message from one RPL Instance to another one , since for
example a RPL
node may belong to multiple RPL Instances, and it may act as a router in
some and as a leaf in others[1], for this reason it does not make sense to
me sending packet from one RPLInstance to other RPLInstance. Besides the
control messages has one field for RPLInstanceID, it does not have
RPLInstanceID origen or RPLInstanceID dst.

What do you think?

Thank you,


[1] RFC6550. Section 5. RFC 6550 describes only how a single instance

2016-05-24 12:17 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <>nl>:

>> I also did not see a mapping of flow from one RPL instance to
>>> another instance.
>> I do not understand this. Could you please clarify?
> A node belonging to one RPL instance sends a message to a node belonging
> to another RPL instance.
> This seems possible in Figure 3, with 3 RPL instances?
> If possible, it means an additional use case.
> Peter