IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 11 October 2021 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 06F083A09FD; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 18:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 HRsInGT2DtMg; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 18:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36FC33A09FC; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 18:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2D71804D; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 21:33:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id UMUjF9j89B5a; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 21:33:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79DE918012; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 21:33:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33E144F; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 21:33:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl.all@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8519C25C-4840-42A8-BE50-65F1C2BCDEF6@cisco.com>
References: <CO1PR11MB48817BF59C64D77794A43F36D8B09@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsxLxfNdPE+s11DqiwDuXg7auwVc953kgC_EZ28bugEWrA@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB488152F0F99251ED4B9DB3BFD8B29@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsyeM4Dfy4yQBKitNcfaS7E=2-x8Ly2hLnbmBHcFvg7rrw@mail.gmail.com> <29221.1633883421@localhost> <8519C25C-4840-42A8-BE50-65F1C2BCDEF6@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 21:33:42 -0400
Message-ID: <22094.1633916022@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HaqbaOhGzM5hbHEL7rpgEgskqUY>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)
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: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 01:33:56 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > As long as no one forms a network that has both that should not be a
    > problem, should it?

The concern would be if someone was upgrading.
I don't think that there is enough deployment for this to matter.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status