Re: [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage

Michael Richardson <> Tue, 17 December 2019 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F7F120CA0 for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:48:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id chNONna92u5t for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:48:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C686F12087A for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:48:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CEE3897F for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:48:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E093F51E for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:48:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:48:08 -0500
Message-ID: <25979.1576604888@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:48:12 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <> wrote:
    >> The RPL Status carrying ND Status seems not adequate,
    >> 1) RPL Status can carry only lower 6bits of the 8bits of ND Status

    > As you point out, it will be trouble if the ND status exceeds 64
    > values. Do you know any status in any RFC that does that? Can you
    > figure the case switch that tests them all with a different behavior
    > each?
    > Seems more sensible to downgrade the 6lo RC to 6 bits on the next
    > occasion.

You mean that we could change the ND status to 6-bits in the 6lo WG?
(I would have parsed ND status as being someing 6man takes care of)

    >> How about using a different ND Option in RPL messaging to keep the ND
    >> handling segregated? The unaware draft can say that this option can be carried
    >> in DCO or any other RPL message it requires. ND status/option may have to be
    >> carried only in specific cases which involves unaware leaves and as such the
    >> control overhead due to option header may not be much.

    > Now, you as much as anyone have in mind that we design for a
    > constrained space. We started with a mapping and Alvaro reacted to
    > that. So we proposed the encapsulation that you describe. And now we'd
    > have an new option? This seems really excessive when each bit
    > counts. Note that so far there is not a single RPL status defined
    > outside of those imported from ND, and each DAO-ACK is carrying 8 bits
    > of zeroes all around the world in millions of devices. We better not
    > increase the waste don't you think?

If we can map or redefine (to have a single IANA registry) things, then i
prefer that over a new option.

    >> This ND option could also be easily extended for future purposes since we may
    >> have additional fields in the future from ND to be carried with RPL.

    > RPL and ND are close family, RPL is effectively the way to support
    > non-transit links (NBMA) that the original ND did not have. RPL carries
    > ND options natively, consider PIO. I'm all for adding more options like
    > SLLAOs in DIO, as we discussed at the meeting. So I fully agree with
    > the desire/intuition.. But we do not need an ND option for that, it's
    > already meant to be this way.

It seems that we need to decide this as part of architecting the RUL, right?

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-