IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 21 February 2013 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 EA67121F8F56 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:42:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 LSjge52YDpk5 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A671F21F8F55 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BBD82016D; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:49:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1BE996387F; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:41:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057FA6387D; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:41:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2696EF02-C90C-484C-854D-D860E5B92627@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>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:41:15 -0500
Message-ID: <19733.1361468475@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
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 17:42:26 -0000

>>>>> "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)

-- 
]               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