Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo-07

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Turner, Randy <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > In section 5, “Storing Mode”, first paragraph, there is a sentence that
    > says “the sender cannot determine whether the destination is
    > RPL-capable and thus would need an IP-in-IP header.”  The last sentence
    > in this paragraph says "the sender can determine if the destination is
    > inside the LLN by looking if the destination address is matched by the
    > DIO’s PIO option.”

    > This implies that “RPL-capable” does not mean “inside the LLN”, is this
    > implication correct ?

I don't think so.
There may well be some editing that has to happen, since 2460bis assumption.
Maybe you can contribute some text to fix this so that it makes sense to you?

One can be inside the LLN, but be RPL-incapable. (a "leaf" or "IPv6 host")

One assumes that nodes outside the LLN are RPL-incapable, and one can
tell this buy looking seeing if the destination address matches the PIO.

{Clearly, with a 6BBR, one can have RPL nodes outside the local LLN
which are RPL-capable, but we can't tell that}

(or more to the point, before -07, routers would drop packets with RPL
artifacts on them. Starting at -07 we assume that RPI is okay, but RH3 is not)

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-