IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] rplinfo

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Fri, 21 July 2017 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
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 89D0712EC51 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 Z5PRripEXw4n for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net (lb3-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net [194.109.24.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A9912EB2B for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([IPv6:2001:888:0:22:194:109:20:204]) by smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net with ESMTP id nLF11v0084CWAV301LF1zx; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:15:01 +0200
Received: from 2001:67c:370:128:fd9d:1fa:b33e:78d5 by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:15:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:15:01 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Cc: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <25395.1500621980@dooku.sandelman.ca>
References: <b8c959fd621886daf3165d8edb4aa321@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUcSg4f_qbnxwCv1dwYUa+MftcZmmhSkOT6jj=wXPPYU0Q@mail.gmail.com> <6b3ea5150f609d2f13a329c39f5aafa6@xs4all.nl> <25395.1500621980@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <186acf2e5068c3417520bc21178f31d0@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/IcWEzhjYV05ciKyUyPtnYmJbnx0>
Subject: Re: [Roll] rplinfo
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:15:05 -0000

> There are two definitions perhaps.  RFC6550 says situations in which
> an RPL-aware node MUST join as a leaf node because it does not speak 
> the
> correct MOP, or other situations.  But, it doesn't actually say what
> it means to be a leaf node.
> 
> A leaf node is a node that join using Router Advertisements only.
> A leaf node is what we normally have called a "host".  Only in the
> situation where it was an incompatible 6550 implementation would
> the leaf understand RPI.  There are potentially many leaf nodes that
> would join a LLN via RA, etc.

IMO it is good to make that clear in the document and explain the 
difference between RA leaves and DODAG leaves

Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email