IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 27 June 2019 05:54 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 93F0D1200FF for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 22:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=MdyKbcLh; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=Ilcc/cSy
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 E8-trQUhmQR6 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 22:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43CC61200B6 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 22:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7115; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1561614841; x=1562824441; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=AripIfGmY2Z9tQgMXoZOuYr/jnIQvyji0ew9I5k6DPE=; b=MdyKbcLh2KZSaKfu5B/3GxCv/WEUomH8FgZQvRXm7oz2gOmDmEZTZ/85 s5bVG9UQyElzXZF/dwJG6sPHH6dMx91sgnPpr3aYn1HAWFNFRlTw8D+4E 5zSM9PQqFLGe4itJSh6OlpLlBYBDJFDPHeB32Iq0fPLV9OXB6Lq0Jon1z Q=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:kVeUyhXy1hr0vbm6nzO9TlZVRiTV8LGuZFwc94YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA9yJ8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTFdE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtankiAMRfXlJ/41mwMFNeH4D1YFiB6nA=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A1AAA2WRRd/5BdJa1kGwEBAQEDAQEBBwMBAQGBVQQBAQELAYEULyQsA2pVIAQLKIdgA45bgluSaoRUgS6BJANUCQEBAQwBAS0CAQGEQAKCfSM2Bw4BAwEBBAEBAgEFbYo3DIVKAQEBBBIbEwEBNwEPAgEIEQQBAS8yHQgBAQQOBQgagwGBHU0DHQECmi8CgTiIX4IjgnkBAQWFChiCEQmBNAGEcYZtF4FAP4ERRoJMPoQoHoM6giaTVHyVVAkCgheUDYIqhxKOGqREAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFXAy6BWHAVgyeCQYNwilNygSmOBgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,422,1557187200"; d="scan'208,217";a="571101275"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Jun 2019 05:54:00 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com (xch-aln-017.cisco.com [173.36.7.27]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x5R5rxea013347 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 05:54:00 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com (173.36.7.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 00:53:59 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 00:53:59 -0500
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 01:53:58 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=testarcselector01; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Ttgj9pdqn8RTwLywjW1TaN5cH5Lf2sMt1vHbwHwRC6p8IfFRaHTTQmsrfE4lPX+NBMGODLt6FtUVYefQtW+wfBQFT3Sh/wt90ZcFwlwZaLjzyRvcQpl/SCULMIT7wrsZsG0/Z5m1yldam/TALfiOmfuiigeaKbEPCFFv8eke140=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=testarcselector01; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=I8+9nmJlcnYYQQyE2lS+TVsV2E+PeQEZgpnXSzjK3Ag=; b=oGIFbKO0n4PHhDNNdHwj9LwnIZow5+jQ6nEa+XFQa2/0L46BGMmbEJ6vMyY29jtfOhNhRtaIj4cUv/+d3R6FYvd/IfzUckmVq0ZGPt1rb73YxcNPCZXsr8UegH3YYCWOaAcBKYi4TUoOvpygFJixX8Hsq9aldSY0100orXk94tY=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; test.office365.com 1;spf=none;dmarc=none;dkim=none;arc=none
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=I8+9nmJlcnYYQQyE2lS+TVsV2E+PeQEZgpnXSzjK3Ag=; b=Ilcc/cSyhELSxR4MLqEIS9ueRpKiOUIvska6Ngid/xjWQRT8b36UhWaPFhtZQL6R7IwKnTP9TJIHUawMQtqooZT16nLe9p1kZTX8vxa7PpUHJiwGNxOPQZAVISdfNUEfnA/HdJkVt0xrbJVhRLByWAYJW/GjNFaWqrlqbjGNyoo=
Received: from BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.206.75) by BYAPR11MB2903.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.225.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2008.16; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 05:53:43 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2ce6:329e:e7f1:5b4a]) by BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2ce6:329e:e7f1:5b4a%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2008.018; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 05:53:43 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
CC: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Thread-Topic: Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
Thread-Index: AdUshAoU1ZNXDKIJRSu3/AosXtsQyAAJ73yQ
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 05:53:36 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 05:52:43 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF0BFA2@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF0BFA2@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
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:c0c0:1006::89]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 91b65d63-f39b-4451-7f1f-08d6fac3cfea
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR11MB2903;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2903:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB2903540E929EF3F8592A8C76D8FD0@BYAPR11MB2903.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 008184426E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(346002)(376002)(396003)(136003)(366004)(199004)(53754006)(189003)(99286004)(86362001)(66574012)(46003)(6916009)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(52536014)(66446008)(66946007)(478600001)(4326008)(81166006)(229853002)(7696005)(25786009)(81156014)(8936002)(33656002)(6116002)(790700001)(2906002)(6436002)(446003)(8676002)(55016002)(486006)(54896002)(76176011)(256004)(9686003)(11346002)(6666004)(316002)(71190400001)(53936002)(71200400001)(76116006)(14454004)(186003)(5660300002)(6306002)(53546011)(6246003)(7736002)(6506007)(102836004)(73956011)(74316002)(476003)(68736007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB2903; H:BYAPR11MB3558.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: A0Z4dSClt2xc/NcJT16Mot1UwNxFUcf0VkxC55HJgnmQgPGRzpa5kIjpPYrLSQgwTqI9rV0Iw3ZcZ9nW3Ib5XZ1I7x6d2TIG5bDceKiZsSWnCSoQR5Q6fy+kJ4EAulZKQ6asCwiLfVT7zy9SJbbJUJk8vMZrbQ8uiE1QdGFulRypK0sTGVzXa+ixjMyf7ConEzlR0mhw6AIi6kzY7GCwhmUZiQjAk/Xhw5h0/riSD6VGsK+sRQNEOKAm3jd833QmeWUrXkhN3I9+7KhAE1wDciK9QAvTeqCjqIg66QRDQ/nW5N1DXNfhCYv1c4n0H1JO5KF4KmOK1FV30BBZG2frIy2vo6LXSPP95s19F7tPQWMT03QWaNHxDgCm1NzbIetGyGthbSs7v+ISNUFGjuBcU2wwZ6D4ZmUC+4nX3ElfN7A=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0BYAPR11MB3558namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 91b65d63-f39b-4451-7f1f-08d6fac3cfea
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Jun 2019 05:53:43.1623 (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: BYAPR11MB2903
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.27, xch-aln-017.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HFMA4tJoMxwEzypfVa2d7Ej7vc8>
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, 27 Jun 2019 05:54:04 -0000

Hello Rahul

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?

All the best,

Pascal

From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rahul Arvind Jadhav
Sent: jeudi 27 juin 2019 03:03
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Cc: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Subject: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters

Hello All,


During IESG evaluation of (draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-12) we received a comment from Mirja regarding specifying the DCO retry operation in detail if DCO-ACK is not received. Quoting her verbatim, "Please specify a maximum number of retries and also a minimum retry interval (of e.g. 3 sec best with exponential back-off)!"


Currently the draft says that this is "implementation and deployment dependent".
RFC 6550 also has DAO retries if DAO-ACK is not received but it also does not specify this operation in detail.

Do you think we can put this explicitly  and does anyone have an opinion on the right way of putting this considering different physical layers with very different characteristics operating in dense/sparse (wireless) deployments?

Thanks,
Rahul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email