IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] MOP 7

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B901208CA for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:06:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 LTSm8GJpJsW7 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe29.google.com (mail-vs1-xe29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0469E12089B for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe29.google.com with SMTP id u18so12904908vsg.5 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:06:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4S5rf8ol//jmz2k0RDWbRGsoAdnM8EfcjfZYWCVnPfY=; b=oajmEA398XrDP87Qy9J0oJjtogMZGUvhE/Sy3psfFv/4KfbxeIAfTeVyu9UwrwFsjv NNHCXae8bQWQAyDkpPLuJRud7ZjxhZ2bj5hTMRq0CS4IEkQ/SpY4bxyJfU9qbzUyiWjR V4CRspIvyOnXysmlYyioZNnqnUsSrJES3NeD/PprJ0eBlOZpszBNaf8Hdl3VzTo89u+4 J02ahlJoivQZH9DyWxwlRiw0JT0I3gnnTpcpj7CnGpoCYT3QRYGkenMW9ItbBcgHMDGd Lvl8nZjAK5OEtHVab4REBgncy9rUN9ksxhEhcewFxE10MPEpwdswDjD3IRTpn2gh29Lu DiKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4S5rf8ol//jmz2k0RDWbRGsoAdnM8EfcjfZYWCVnPfY=; b=OvUy847YnXmKY6lcRonIRbV6Mk+H9O5eJQnYZC5d3QM4mFJcv5c9pkcOpUkYY4bvnd UssTCPjM3PaWyAvi170DCk7iuedotWK0wiY2WY3xixc13L6spRNSQNIcnq4llfaIYjN7 cwH+YD0RibQNirpfbY21+UWU2AVS5B7XiKlXDFKrhpUhEONjUGP73EbIb3apqQ6CLakJ xwIildPhA9LBlzHLxSTcdRptOrQ1E3zh3fM+dhLaLjdoGn2mk7YrW3efFVa+X8aj4qbe 2We5xUHxf72O44r8MiSIB6GZ6GuMhaTBvD/wodNtYirVI3toWIH9+ePsxX95XX6HVOw2 PPTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXwROivCEq7LRx+l4pY2gtrVlDiAE2nsjgpgaa9h2dSHWcjK53Z hbnEWIW/SLSirhkn8fb8htQep9om7T1qCv0QmIyv0FzuS8Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxcH821nmctu0uQ55GREvIXBJBndz9bHkihoCetYoeba03fij74kmuVtqpYZH6WzQCjnhTMs/uCrhSn3NRjprk=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:690f:: with SMTP id e15mr21463803vsc.170.1574154393852; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:06:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB3565C994E6D7B60E58711BA3D84C0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565C994E6D7B60E58711BA3D84C0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 17:06:22 +0800
Message-ID: <CAO0Djp3znJS46yajP0Rq+UKxMw=jvGoujmu3XSLSDLA8MPXbMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/M5ZYDq-inX00wNxPJFBCnG_yyYw>
Subject: Re: [Roll] MOP 7
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:06:40 -0000

Please find my comments inline.

Regards,
Rahul

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 09:44, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
>
>
> Yesterday we said that if MOP is 7 then the MOPext is expected else the packet is dropped. An alternate could be to say that if MOP is 7 in the DIO and the MOPext is not present then the MOP is non-storing, since this is the most widely used mode in constrained networks.

[RJ] The advantage, I assume, is that not having MOPex will save bytes
in the DIO for the common case. This would result in three
representations for non-storing MOP:
a. base MOP = 1 ... RPLv1
b. base MOP = 7 ... without MOPex ... RPLv2
c. base MOP = 7 ... MOPex = 7 ... RPLv2
For the sake of simplicity, I would prefer to mandatorily use MOPex if
MOP=7. Simplicity I refer to is, Base MOP = 7 would mean, go check
MOPex value.
>From an implementation point of view, if base MOP=7, then the
implementation still cannot start using this value of MOP=7 since it
still needs to check the MOPex.

>
>
>
> We also said that a MOP of 7 means RPLv2, which packages new support we are defining. Q is what’s mandatory and what’s optional.
>
> I see mandatory the support of the MOPext, capabilities, useofrplinfo, DCO and RUL draft.

[RJ] Thank you, Will update this set in the mopex draft.

>
> RFC 8138 (inc turn-on), PDAO and AODV RPL are also part of RPLv2 but then the support may be optional I guess, known through capability.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email