Re: [Roll] in non-storing mode how do leaf nodes know where the root is?

Kerry Lynn <> Mon, 04 April 2016 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A9D12D138 for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.15
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=zfbDJL5+; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=OREIxLm1
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7DRrlNxPgTLD for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A629112D111 for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ui10so87351786igc.1 for <>; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to; bh=HuOG9OBM7CFAF2ac6IBn60pHcaXrNqqrx78ZqhT0fEA=; b=zfbDJL5+uPiuInP0EVBlOTQdPs6wiFCzyyBKOACxCLLgTMwStPJtXKoGCQUCdRWBh/ v2vah8CowYjKYWVcIl7ur4bf9AJyu3/7fYOlvnhq35DI+uir04DzFW67fwARqwiaVgiC oxAwgzKHtndzOGgv73N9M6EBlPkekjvJBaEZlQ0uBli27eZbmNHWWW+OXcLPP1OE+0lL aNPl3EjIymU4Se7k8jkQyXB6scGeqNKDRVIRJD5jTTlfKvM9KTqQ0hfrS3H+U63OuU2Y yooH2G+r9IOhWVYXAqe0WMMNmKfDggtNamAgG/46eCFZv3cnDdrx9cx3LmcW/LXdR8yY EoDQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to; bh=HuOG9OBM7CFAF2ac6IBn60pHcaXrNqqrx78ZqhT0fEA=; b=OREIxLm1xvF8KmsIWkHyz4tH5Y4s52m1rpzbQKfJutIsdcFQFjk7AQ/eoaZqxMvydR sWJTrM32TQX2d2j6+wbWQajni0YcmV6ecyWQjrog4bFdqCOct7wgzeB7ng9bLwPGs3zu wpAik7yvJy7xJF6SMUyuvJn8VaSslHcNwvJ6WKNiktPwhtdvtAA/f7xse3Dx+8pEhWv2 FuT+A4GoC9FBkhp8wh5XFowTsFip9xKyvJLKx15R3Hzc4qhvzQNwu1W8WMYsQhrHfexL xlXGgUJKYv3mHGGNmvOd+W8yDUw8SNIR/d8p2UnoHC9iZldT7upcXSBbq9ToA8mlDJtW +Eng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=HuOG9OBM7CFAF2ac6IBn60pHcaXrNqqrx78ZqhT0fEA=; b=lsdQ47qWJ6tbCV2FcSA2+AGFt3e8JwmHP7QdPYdqQiaM298R3xUHiWFwFOpOxmG4kh w/IM+o4dqCTF30/Av2zBn1FR0iIbJI0ahccP0DFPYKdR0eo8RX252z4mitzZWKGhkTeC syth7e1bsygAakzUP7Hah12iJbPDnNKJoqQsEap+N9lZxNdBbXia1exzJXBQ2ct+pWFy s8FJtMMHEMiu1pHvZAI4Y+jVVt+k7wB1Tc3ZYUMjWNsxCv1lZTUQ6/S6Okb/ol8DHW2L KDWDKgnPSOOi5t/XY0nOyeQd1qIfXMYO8CgPALdgJl9tIP8KUY4xHLyhlFiZdewQyGd/ 6OlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKtnS1ulr6ZRwFwzm6wrK/uWbe5qaJ2LzSbz5zH9qUK2jfjKguzgf5VCzfTSxZICuCmgGdCDd7NDCE++Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id qm5mr12396243igb.69.1459786845905; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:20:45 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: o1MIMxJQ7YAlrV7354pz3PlT1Gs
Message-ID: <>
From: Kerry Lynn <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135f1466610e7052fab1c92
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] in non-storing mode how do leaf nodes know where the root is?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:21:56 -0000

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Ines Robles <
> wrote:

>    > DODAGID: ....The DODAGID MUST be a routable IPv6 address...
>>> That definision is in 6.3.1, while the definition in section 2 says:
>>>    DODAGID: A DODAGID is the identifier of a DODAG root.  The DODAGID is
>>>          unique within the scope of a RPL Instance in the LLN.  The
>>>          tuple (RPLInstanceID, DODAGID) uniquely identifies a DODAG.
>>> I think that the second definition should be moved/copied to the top,
>>> and I
>>> suggest an errata.
>>> According to me, that does not solve your original question,
>> moving up and merging the two definitions does.
>> So, the merging (taking in consideration definition in section 8 as well)
> would be something like this:
> DODAGID: 128-bit (Global or Unique Local ) IPv6 address  set by a DODAG
> root that uniquely identifies a DODAG. The DODAGID MUST be a routable (1)
> IPv6 address belonging to the DODAG root. A DODAGID is the identifier of a
> DODAG root.  The DODAGID is unique within the scope of a RPL Instance in
> the LLN.  The tuple (RPLInstanceID, DODAGID) uniquely identifies a DODAG.
> I think the first true definition is in section 5.1:

   The DODAGID used to configure the local RPLInstanceID MUST be

   a reachable IPv6 address of the node, and it MUST be used as

   an endpoint of all communications within that local instance.

Ines' proposed text is consistent with this (though more specific).


> (1)Unique Local They are not expected to be routable on the global Internet.  They are routable inside of a more limited area such as a site. They may also be routed between a limited set of sites [ RFC 4193]
> Cheers,
> Ines.
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list