Re: [Roll] RPLInstanceID parameter from Source Routing Header is missing in RFC6554

Jonathan Hui <> Fri, 22 June 2012 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E89611E8080 for <>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rSuqpi0FJKuf for <>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45ED221F85E0 for <>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=11363; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1340344496; x=1341554096; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=L4YT4mie3dkSydoa6pqk0K6Cay2AgJi1l0I/I3A169o=; b=PV84z9Q8+cmmESxbqagdX48nxM9M/NUHMCZW558cQzDmnYF3gNaIEhg+ BguoYx17upNRdelTBlrkxYhppDA90WgWuaTWrdQZyaoOUAIT6r0iMG+Pm qGXVvh9WRVs4XLTAalxTrJ1HxuQQZ9okM0QmEJcAd7H9pRMqfqkuoFQaL Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.77,455,1336348800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="47266992"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2012 05:54:54 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5M5srcu032527; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 05:54:54 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D2541D89-182D-4B8B-B9AF-E22E3CA6D69F"
From: Jonathan Hui <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:54:53 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Dario Tedeschi <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPLInstanceID parameter from Source Routing Header is missing in RFC6554
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 05:54:57 -0000

Hi Dario,

The ICMP Error message will contain the IPv6 header of the error-generating packet.  If link A -> B is broken, the IPv6 Destination Address will indicate B and the SRH will indicate A.

My point is that if you want to clean up routes, you need to clean up all routes that use A -> B, not just the particular Instance that you used to generate the route and discover the error.

Jonathan Hui

On Jun 21, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Dario Tedeschi wrote:

> Hi Jonathan
> Sorry, for late response to your email. 
> Consider the scenario where a DODAG root node supports two or more RPL instances under one prefix. Each instance providing different routing objectives (i.e. different objective functions). Potentially, the source-route to a destination under one instance can be different to the source-route to the same destination under a different instance. For example: Instance 1 could have a source-route R-->X-->Y-->D, while instance 2 could have a source-route R-->X-->Z-->D. Lets say node Y sent a Destination Unreachable ("Error in source-route") back to R, because D was unreachable from Y. How would R know which source-route needed repair and, consequently, which instance needed a DTSN update?
> Regards
> Dario
> On 01/06/2012 7:46 PM, Jonathan Hui wrote:
>> I don't understand the need for knowing the RPLInstanceID when handling an ICMP Destination Unreachable error.  The SRH does not follow any RPL Instance, just the IPv6 addresses listed in the SRH.  Receiving an ICMP Destination Unreachable error from a node S simply means that S could not forward to the next         IPv6 address in the SRH.  The inability of S to forward to the specified next hop would be true regardless of what RPL Instance the SRH was constructed from.
>> --
>> Jonathan Hui
>> On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Dario Tedeschi wrote:
>>> Yes, I noticed this as well. It is unfortunate because as you say, there is now no way to identify which instance a Error in SRH is for, and subsequently the root node can't just remove that routing entry in a specific instance. Instead it must either remove that entry from all instances or do nothing and wait for the next DAO to update the entry.
>>> Dario
>>> On 30/05/2012 1:58 AM, Tecuceanu Andreea-Dana-B10623 wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> I have observed that the RPLInstanceID field from Source Routing header (present in  draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-07) was removed in RFC6554.
>>>> Are there particular reasons for this? This field is necessary at the DODAG Root when it receives a  Destination Unreachable with code "Error in Source Routing Header" to identify the instance with the problem (only if there are two instances with the same prefix and if the node is Root in both of them).
>>>> Andreea Tecuceanu
>>>> (Freescale Semiconductor)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Roll mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roll mailing list