Re: [Roll] RPLInstanceID parameter from Source Routing Header is missing in RFC6554

Jonathan Hui <> Sat, 02 June 2012 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BDF111E80B8 for <>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OU4O3MSFH+Z5 for <>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4973E11E808C for <>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=7226; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1338605221; x=1339814821; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=/njZWDO434dm6vhM8I8+Y5c8HyCCPhTIhKprXz3BDto=; b=mYF5O2R20NsBBsoC5L04K3Eo7WihNCvxKDZ4P6O6zzwcw/nX+6pL8d4C EWLbO49saZ9UUFOZ2ehFdyDqprlURxClhM/YQCfhjP5syLG5IfA8rSiGr mhO//FUaZtYuMEgChHMriCE2540T/kF+YRHiMswMSIeizmxqsFbtis2uk w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAAZ+yU+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbAA7CoJFsX+BB4IYAQEBAwEBAQEPARpBCwULCw4KLicwBhMih2QEDJgZn1IEiw8QhSBgA4hAjFmOD4FmgwA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,700,1330905600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="47275455"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2012 02:47:00 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q522kxZR023936; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:46:59 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1--479232985"
From: Jonathan Hui <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:46:59 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Dario Tedeschi <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPLInstanceID parameter from Source Routing Header is missing in RFC6554
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 02:47:02 -0000

I don't understand the need for knowing the RPLInstanceID when handling an ICMP Destination Unreachable error.  The SRH does not follow any RPL Instance, just the IPv6 addresses listed in the SRH.  Receiving an ICMP Destination Unreachable error from a node S simply means that S could not forward to the next IPv6 address in the SRH.  The inability of S to forward to the specified next hop would be true regardless of what RPL Instance the SRH was constructed from.

Jonathan Hui

On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Dario Tedeschi wrote:

> Yes, I noticed this as well. It is unfortunate because as you say, there is now no way to identify which instance a Error in SRH is for, and subsequently the root node can't just remove that routing entry in a specific instance. Instead it must either remove that entry from all instances or do nothing and wait for the next DAO to update the entry.
> Dario
> On 30/05/2012 1:58 AM, Tecuceanu Andreea-Dana-B10623 wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I have observed that the RPLInstanceID field from Source Routing header (present in  draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-07) was removed in RFC6554.
>> Are there particular reasons for this? This field is necessary at the DODAG Root when it receives a  Destination Unreachable with code "Error in Source Routing Header" to identify the instance with the problem (only if there are two instances with the same prefix and if the node is Root in both of them).
>> Andreea Tecuceanu
>> (Freescale Semiconductor)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list