Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)

Hi!

Yes, we do need to hear from the authors, who’ll need to eventually make
any needed changes.

If we’re moving forward with using MOP 4, then this is what we would need
(at least):

- IANA Considerations: request to add aodv-rpl as a reference in the
registry.

- A new section that talks about how the reuse is ok, and any consequences
of overlapping.  A requirement to not use both variations in the same
network would be fine too.

I will rely on the Chairs to decide if the discussion is enough to reach
consensus on the path forward.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On October 8, 2021 at 8:08:09 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
pthubert@cisco.com) wrote:

Hello Alvaro:

I read from the parallel thread that sharing MOP 4 between the 2 reactive
versions of RPL would be OK.

I did not see a response from the authors so I’m cc’ing the draft .all list
just in case.

We do not need to deprecate P2P RPL as long as it is never present in the
same network as AODV RPL.

Maybe a  sentence in AODV RPL about that in the IANA section would help?

Keep safe;

Pascal

*From:* Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
*Sent:* mercredi 6 octobre 2021 12:59
*To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
*Cc:* Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)

[Added the draft name to the subject to benefit my filters. ;-) ]

Pascal:

Hi!

I asked the same question (about aodv-rpl replacing/obsoleting rfc6997)
when I did my review [1] — more than two years ago!  But sadly received no
real reply from the WG — so we moved ahead with the document as it is now.
Peter brought the question back in his IoT DIT review [2] earlier this
year, but again no discussion from the WG.

It is clear to see that aodv-rpl uses some of the technology from rfc6997
and, as I understand it, a deployment would never include both.  The
question then is valid and I would love to see more interest this time
around.

Just FYI — there would need to be some process behind a move to formally
replace rfc6997 (beyond updating the draft).  We can deal with that if we
need to.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/XXaPFyhqiUS_bpYSJT45UaLyeec/

[2]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/f2GUlTDX4ppY1GKjQFqS8930ZYI/

On October 6, 2021 at 2:29:30 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org) wrote:

Dear all,

RPL AODV is close to completion, congrats to the authors!

Now, there’s the question of the MOP and 2 options, reuse the experimental
one for P2P RPL, or take another.

Right now, the draft takes 5 and P2P has 4 (
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#mop)

My observation is that P2P is the experiment that leads to AODV, so AODV
should deprecate it.

I have not heard of real deployments, and if that happened, I do not expect
a mix of devices that would create confusion.

So would that be OK to assign MOP 4 to RPL AODV?

Note that we only have up to 6 to play with, and the multicast and anycast
supports are already on the cooking table.

Keep safe,

Pascal

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll