IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 04 July 2019 11:22 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 6D532120294 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:22:44 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=BIKP/LW6; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=v8aNwVuD
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 5GKulRoKDAXT for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55CAD1204C2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2944; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562239362; x=1563448962; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=eT2MJgaLZ5hUlU31c1CSCrNbzlPu6gqyhKCRzKrTNjI=; b=BIKP/LW6InkY+ETybc/X9JHNKMjzUcuVVZDM0Sxqmo+CQyFr1eV+qENQ U1h71usRi42InHh/vb0CzdZnOpYD3P4iSRIV5BQyJaM9A35nWCj9579ai cI0abuBUNaJmgof82LM4TfELsQO0ofEu0pK0+/gfOXeD0K2nNyMw97pwx o=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:qGHXyxeUwOpVjUNS5j6FqOtklGMj4e+mNxMJ6pchl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwGQD57D5adCjOzb++D7VGoM7IzJkUhKcYcEFnpnwd4TgxRmBceEDUPhK/u/dzA6Ac5PTkNN9HCgOk8TE8H7NBXf
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AGAAC04B1d/5JdJa1mGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUwQBAQEBAQsBgUMkLAOBPyAECyiEHINHA4RSiXiCW4lNjXmBLoEkA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAheCEyM0CQ4BAwEBBAEBAgEFbYo3DIVKAQEBAQMSEREMAQE3AQsEAgEIDgMEAQEBAgImAgICHxEVCAgBAQQBDQUIGoRrAx0BAptyAoE4iGBxgTKCeQEBBYUWDQuCEgmBDCgBi14XgUA/gVeCTD6CGoIOHoMIMoImjmmbG0AJAoIXkA2EDpdzjTCJMY4FAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFQOIFYcBWDJ4JBg3GKU3KBKY1gAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,450,1557187200"; d="scan'208";a="583643977"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 04 Jul 2019 11:22:41 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (xch-rcd-007.cisco.com [173.37.102.17]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x64BMfIK010243 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:22:41 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:22:40 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:22:40 -0500
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:22:40 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=eT2MJgaLZ5hUlU31c1CSCrNbzlPu6gqyhKCRzKrTNjI=; b=v8aNwVuDvpjYhe/+wVz5mWJEeyKw31JskmMlXccG3j0RNchoJXI+jacBvUpgdo29cexX4SQR30UNNWO18UWmxRd8l1YXpIyL3oIICdgeeGvahkJ3mxVrMnKLXog+tqETkNInnFDf+Kk2D7jvJTl+mW75fp6+TUuSdkjltEIyhjY=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB4255.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.37.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2032.20; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:22:39 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1ce9:1582:146c:c50a]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1ce9:1582:146c:c50a%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2032.019; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:22:39 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
Thread-Index: AdUshAoU1ZNXDKIJRSu3/AosXtsQyAAJ73yQAWpnUIAAALn3gAAAUNEg
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 11:22:21 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:21:49 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB35659BA8A9C5D1A810DF9A1DD8FA0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF0BFA2@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESswJ0TozAJCa4o0nJOvGToi-324M4CY9beWWQmOB-Cp6PQ@mail.gmail.com> <781F0E6E-5F97-49C4-8E5C-3933088D87E7@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <781F0E6E-5F97-49C4-8E5C-3933088D87E7@kuehlewind.net>
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: [2001:420:c0c0:1008::1d]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: aefa4909-4f9a-4e71-ed32-08d70071ec4b
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB4255;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4255:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB425535752A83BD49A765940ED8FA0@MN2PR11MB4255.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0088C92887
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(346002)(366004)(376002)(199004)(189003)(13464003)(68736007)(46003)(53936002)(9686003)(74316002)(33656002)(7736002)(55016002)(6246003)(11346002)(305945005)(86362001)(6116002)(446003)(186003)(476003)(66574012)(229853002)(486006)(8936002)(14454004)(99286004)(76176011)(478600001)(7696005)(5660300002)(316002)(110136005)(73956011)(66446008)(76116006)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(66946007)(52536014)(256004)(14444005)(25786009)(4326008)(6436002)(102836004)(2906002)(8676002)(53546011)(6506007)(6666004)(71190400001)(71200400001)(81166006)(81156014); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4255; 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: TohQb8NFJy2D8LzkO3fbMOua7/elyl80qDnHugcl+nnHhlKp8SxGpLIlhsc61WmAo5ZQ5g0a1nHnrvwbEcb+9UHEFbObO24cFL1kKxgKt43K8TJi+700J2xnG4n0IhGPwHoFdjTj41vp9iyxCLPxfLA8EWw21HjyMFlXNCxuB4u76qLfeNUIhg1mRUaBI+Eim19Jkpp4cuL5cRVUn746+sDfCQw/V4cklkTBSRnKlci+lF71CleK89kCkNrY6VpX1uGgl92IeJgne1asHl5Rsm5fybeNF84nWv9stfYjst9NJxv41ffpHP/NYAUVGn4iEA+6b1ZMcW0v3jbssixK7rji9igkFXABLNpUy/hdg3BMUdPjHGa5NZQQJg3jxTLXkewbD6Wg2Zv5cEkKWak/i4Et45y75Wj5tJoaQkqMJSc=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: aefa4909-4f9a-4e71-ed32-08d70071ec4b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jul 2019 11:22:39.0128 (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-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: pthubert@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4255
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.17, xch-rcd-007.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/FmHmT54um8uzyadzVnBc1av7Pfs>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
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, 04 Jul 2019 11:22:51 -0000

You have a point there, Mirja.

UDP over LLNs may have to live with durations that are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude longer than usual in more classical links these days. It can take a minute and more to get a message through. 

So yes, a bit of text that says that the typical latencies and turn-around-trip delays observed on the Internet and the default settings that derive from that may not apply in LLNs and need to be revisited depending on the link type and the number of hops in case of a mesh network.

Is that what you are indicating to us?

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> Sent: jeudi 4 juillet 2019 13:05
> To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <pthubert@cisco.com>
> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My request wasn’t to specify this in detail for every scenario, it was to set
> boundaries about what's safe to do. The 3 seconds I mentions are the
> recommendation given in RFC8085, however, if you have a good reason to use
> different values that possible but it would be good to provide more reasoning
> then about when it is still safe to use the values and when it should be
> avoided.
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> > On 4. Jul 2019, at 12:44, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On June 27, 2019 at 1:54:11 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> (pthubert@cisco.com) wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> >> RPL is designed to operate in very different environment, and some LLNs
> can be very slow, very lossy or even both. This is why RFC 6550 refrains from
> being too specific.
> >> Maybe it is good enough to add text indicating that the values used for DCO
> are expected to be similar/consistent with those used in DAO?
> > I agree with Pascal.  In fact, the diversity of environments not only makes it
> very hard to be too specific, but it is one of the reasons the WG has produced
> Applicability Statements for them: not all deployments are the same.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Alvaro.
> >
> >

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email