Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sun, 10 August 2014 16:29 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 34B421A07A1; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 09:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.149
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 2X0LjHp8OfE6; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 09:29:11 -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 611AC1A079F; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 09:29:11 -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 s7AGT4Yg016758; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 18:29:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54890283.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.2.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5716C1B3; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 18:29:03 +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: <CAP+sJUeLa9r2otVv41ezg1Om--XzM84w3MOvCyn7bawDA7Oqgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 18:29:01 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 429380941.471819-dfbf150314bf00e9194c8a1c7e1ac4ac
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <64A628BA-EADA-4738-BB8D-2CFFDE8E6CF0@tzi.org>
References: <CAP+sJUeLa9r2otVv41ezg1Om--XzM84w3MOvCyn7bawDA7Oqgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, roll <roll@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/K3nWYNwmCQTtycJ86aH3qS-ExbA
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
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: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:29:13 -0000

So far, we have mainly discussed the need for an optimization (it seems we now agree there is a need) and the interaction between the normative components of RFC 6437 and those of the draft at hand.

I’d now like to bring up a different question:

Is this the right approach?

I have written up what appears to be a more natural approach in the strawman draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-6lo-rpl-mesh-00

Why are we doing the flow-label thing and not the more natural thing?

[ ] because the flow label hack works on packets that leave the 6lo networks.
    • but do we really need to optimize this on the non-6lo networks?
[ ] because the flow label hack has been around for a while and is now cast in stone.
    • is it?
[ ] because there is a flaw with the way this has been integrated into the 6lo framework.
    • ______ (fill in the flaw)
[ ] because ______ (fill in the reason)

Inquiring minds want to know.

Grüße, Carsten