Re: [Roll] [6lo] [6tisch] Fwd: Comparison of 6lo-rpl drafts

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 17 September 2014 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08801A03E1; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 01:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 CL0jUXr15kXD; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 01:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 843351A03DF; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 01:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8H8259m019569; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:02:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p548903CF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.3.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 100B5B78; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:02:02 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842DC5639@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:02:00 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 432633719.993071-68352a572df23452ea67c4e649f36c34
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0FE1C6E1-EBA2-431D-A2DB-1C3874234827@tzi.org>
References: <CAH=LnKQDPf_-Tw7BODF03PKYkLXjLCSR9RAtd-x9-ha-c80Hrg@mail.gmail.com> <037472BD-E257-4561-8A07-988039DD4641@nestlabs.com> <CAMsDxWTHrgDLopT1Oz93xAuCyimAADmudBj71PTiHgCAj28CPg@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842DC5072@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <2992BA1F-147C-4652-B713-D2F31F45F74F@tzi.org> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842DC5639@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/JucujuGXStF24lIzbI5XUU2e9rE
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] [6tisch] Fwd: Comparison of 6lo-rpl drafts
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:02:19 -0000

On 17 Sep 2014, at 09:48, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> - 6MAN on whether we can avoid having to set and/or carry a field of randomized 20 bits in the LLN  

Laudable, and completely unrelated to the hijacking.
(Not on critical path, anyway.)

> then eventually rewrite it for LLN purpose

Don’t do that.

> - ROLL to decide whether to use a ROLL solution (based on FL is the only one on the table) or

The flow label is not ROLL’s, so there is nothing to do here.

> wait for 6lo to deliver

ROLL has waited long enough for consensus to build in 6man around the flow label hijacking.
Not happening.

> - 6Lo to decide whether and how to compress the RPL option (3 proposals on the table)

I think we are converging quickly here.

Summary:

I’m calling for all involved to stop muddying the water with the dead flow label hijacking proposal.
It is a distraction from the consensus that is being built around a 6lo solution, and it will never fly.

Grüße, Carsten